SpaceX
SpaceX hangar packed with Falcon Heavy Block 5 boosters for early April debut
For a company that rarely reveals anything without explicit intent, a February 28th video posted by SpaceX during the lead-up to Crew Dragon’s launch debut featured a surprise cameo: two Block 5 side boosters meant to support Falcon Heavy’s commercial debut and second launch ever.
Likely a subtle nod to close observers and fans, the inclusion of Falcon Heavy is a perfect bit of foreshadowing for the next launch set to occur from Pad 39A after Crew Dragon’s flawless orbital debut. As of now, Falcon Heavy Flight 2 is settling in on a potential launch as early as the first week of April, although delays during the rocket’s critical preflight processing and static fire test are about as likely as they were during the vehicle’s inaugural mission. If the rocket’s first launch and booster recoveries are fully successful, both side boosters (and perhaps the center core) could fly for a second time as few as two months later in June 2019.
A number of photos taken by Instagram users visiting Kennedy Space Center appear to indicate that SpaceX has more or less completed the reconfiguration of Pad 39A’s transporter/erector (T/E), modifying the base with additional hold-down clamps to account for three Falcon boosters instead of the usual one. Ten days after the successful launch of Falcon 9 B1051 in support of Crew Dragon’s first mission to orbit, it’s likely that additional work remains to ensure that 39A is fully refurbished and reconfigured for Falcon Heavy.
For the heavy-lift rocket’s commercial debut and second flight ever, SpaceX is likely to be exceptionally cautious and methodical in their preflight preparations. This is especially necessary due to the fact that Falcon Heavy Flight 2 differs dramatically from Falcon Heavy’s demo configuration, degrading the applicability of some aspects of the data gathered during the rocket’s largely successful test flight.
Most notably, all three first stage boosters will be Block 5 variants on their first flights, whereas Flight 1’s first stage featured two flight-proven Block 2 boosters (B1023 and B1025) and one new Block 3 booster (B1033). Additionally, the center core – B1033 – was lost during a landing anomaly that prevented the booster from reigniting its engine for a landing burn, cutting off another valuable source of data that would have served to better inform engineers on the performance of Falcon Heavy’s complex and previously unproven mechanical stage separation mechanisms.
Falcon 9 Block 5 is a fairly radical departure from the Block 2 and 3 variants SpaceX based Falcon Heavy’s initial design on. It’s possible that the rocket’s engineers were able to at least set up that design and manufacturing work on a safe path to forward compatibility, but it’s equally possible that so much work was focused on simply getting the vehicle past its launch debut that compatibility with Falcon 9 Block 4 and 5 was pushed well into the periphery. Considering the fact that it has now been more than a year since Falcon Heavy’s February 6th, 2018 debut, the latter eventuality offers a much better fit. Nevertheless, with a solid 13-14 additional months of redesign and testing complete, it seems that SpaceX is keen to get its super heavy-lift launch vehicle back on the horse, so to speak.
The specific changes made in Falcon 9 Block 4 is unclear aside from a general improvement in Merlin 1D and MVac performance, as well as significant upgrades to Falcon 9’s upper stage, likely focused on US military and NASA requirements for long-coast capabilities on unique mission profiles. Most significantly, Falcon 9 Block 5 transitioned the SpaceX rocket to a radically different primary thrust structure (also known as the octaweb), replacing welded assemblies with bolted assemblies wherever possible. This simultaneously allows for easier repairs and modifications, improves ease of manufacture, and increases the structure’s overall strength, a critical benefit for Falcon Heavy’s heavily-stressed center core. Meanwhile, Falcon 9 Block 5 moved from Full Thrust’s (Block 3/4) maximum 6800 kN (1,530,000 lbf) of thrust to more than 7600 kN (1,710,000 lbf), an increase of roughly 12%. Combined with Block 5’s focus on extreme reusability, SpaceX engineers and technicians likely had to do a huge amount of work to leap from Falcon Heavy Flight 1 to Flight 2.
Aside from the presence of both Falcon Heavy side boosters, both of which were spotted arriving in Florida by local observers, the first Block 5 Falcon Heavy center core also very likely arrived within the last few months, followed rapidly by can be assumed to be the mission’s fairing and Falcon upper stage. Falcon Heavy’s commercial debut will see the rocket attempt to place communications satellite Arabsat 6A – weighing around 6000 kg (13,200 lb) – into a high-energy geostationary orbit, either direct-to-GEO or a transfer (GTO) variety.
If all goes according to plan, SpaceX will attempt to turn around Falcon Heavy’s Block 5 side boosters (B1052 and B1053) for Falcon Heavy’s third launch – the USAF’s STP-2 mission – as few as 60-80 days later, June 2019. According to NASASpaceflight, STP-2 will fly with a new center core (presumed to be B1057) instead of reusing Arabsat 6A’s well-cooked B1055 booster.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
Elon Musk
OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership
OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.
In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.
That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.
SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.
Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.
Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
Tesla Cybercab Event: what to expect from Austin
