News
SpaceX test-fires Falcon 9 for expendable Block 5 launch as bad weather threatens delays
SpaceX has fired up twice-flown Falcon 9 booster B1047 ahead of Block 5’s second expendable launch ever, but the company avoided its usual confirmation that a ‘quick look’ data analysis shows the vehicle as ready for launch.
Aside from the unusual phrasing of SpaceX’s static fire confirmation, stating instead that the company “is assessing data”, the weather forecast for the launch of AMOS-17 is looking about as dreary as it was during SpaceX’s most recent July 25th launch, CRS-18. CRS-18 was scrubbed once before the instantaneous launch window luckily coincided with an only partially metaphorical gap in the clouds. However, scheduled to lift off no earlier than 6:52 pm EDT (22:52 UTC), August 3rd, the AMOS-17 commsat launch features a comparatively luxurious ~90-minute window, giving SpaceX a much better shot at ‘threading the needle’.
Still, as indicated in the tweet above, the combination of a horrible weather forecast (70% chance of weather violation on Aug. 3, 60% on Aug. 4), uncertainty surrounding Falcon 9’s static fire test results, and the gravity of this particular launch all suggest that delays are likely.
With most things in rocketry, the adage, “Better late than never!” almost invariably holds true when dealing with late-stage launch vehicle processing, and SpaceX will be taking that to the extreme with this launch for reasons that will become clear. If SpaceX can avoid the growing probability of minor delays, generally an annoying non-issue more than anything else, customer Spacecom will certainly be appreciative, but the most important thing is ensuring the safe orbital delivery of AMOS-17.
Weighing roughly 6500 kg (14,300 lb) fully-fueled, AMOS-17 is a relatively large geostationary communications satellite built by Boeing and, practically speaking, is meant to replace Amos-6, an Israeli-built satellite that was destroyed in September 2016 during a catastrophic Falcon 9 failure. Spacecom effectively took the insurance funds it received from the loss of Amos-6, purchased AMOS-17 via Boeing, and then chose a contract option that gave the company a free Falcon 9 launch instead of taking a cash payout of $50M.
Be it financial necessity or a genuine decision to trust SpaceX that led Spacecom to manifest its replacement satellite on Falcon 9, a second failure and loss of payload (AMOS-17) during this launch would be a spectacular embarrassment and a major wound to SpaceX’s growing reputation as a reliable launch provider. If there is any launch in particular that SpaceX explicitly wants to avoid a failure on, it’s probably AMOS-17.
Perhaps to this end, SpaceX has actually chosen – presumably at the request or suggestion of Spacecom – to expend a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster in support of the AMOS-17 launch. Confirmed by SpaceX to be B1047.2, the company will preclude a landing attempt and instead sacrifice a booster that might otherwise fly a dozen more launches to give Spacecom a larger safety margin and help AMOS-17 start serving customers as quickly as possible. The sooner AMOS-17 can reach its final geostationary orbit (GEO), the sooner Spacecom can begin generating revenue from the satellite.
Finally, SpaceX fairing recovery vessel GO Ms. Tree (formerly Mr. Steven) has just departed Port Canaveral (c. August 1st) and is headed nearly 1000 km (600 mi) east into the Atlantic Ocean for what could be the ship’s second successful fairing catch ever. Stay tuned as SpaceX provides updates and we near AMOS-17’s tentative launch date.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
