Connect with us

News

SpaceX fan spots sooty Falcon 9 Block 5 booster at Kennedy Space Center

Captured by Twitter user Sideralmente (@astroperinaldo) on July 3rd, a sooty Falcon 9 booster appeared to arrive at SpaceX's Pad 39A hangar. (Twitter - @astroperinaldo)

Published

on

On July 2nd, Twitter user Sideralmente (@astroperinaldo) spotted a sooty Falcon 9 Block 5 booster arriving at SpaceX’s Pad 39A hangar facilities, currently operating as a sort of defacto refurbishment hub.

Likely a prelude to a near-term launch, SpaceX has several missions scheduled over the next few months. More likely than not, all of them will fly on flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters, now so common that launching new boosters has started to feel exceedingly rare and unusual. July 2nd’s booster spotting is also a rare (albeit slightly less rare) treat, given the general lack of access (aside from a bus tour) members of the public have to Kennedy Space Center’s operational facilities and the total lack of access they have to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, home of SpaceX’s most active launch pad (LC-40).

CRS-18

Up next for SpaceX is Cargo Dragon CRS-18, the spacecraft’s second International Space Station (ISS) resupply mission this year. At least over the last 2-3 years, SpaceX and NASA have been fairly consistent with Cargo Dragon launches in the winter, late-spring/early-summer, and late-fall (Q1, Q2/Q3, Q4) for an average of three launches annually. 2018/2019 is no different: CRS-16 launched in early-December 2018 and CRS-17 in early-May 2019, while CRS-18 is scheduled to launch NET 7:35 pm ET, July 21st and CRS-19 is targeted for early-December 2019.

Cargo Dragon CRS-18 will carry one large and critical piece of unpressurized payload: the International Docking Adapter 3 (IDA-3). IDA-3 is seen here being loaded into Dragon’s trunk. (NASA)

Meanwhile, CRS-18 is also expected to be the first time a NASA mission launches on a flight-proven Falcon 9 Block 5 booster, potentially paving the way for NASA’s first launch on a twice-flown Block 5 booster with CRS-19 – hopefully later this year. Of course, that subsequent milestone will depend on a successful launch and landing during CRS-18. Falcon 9 booster B1056 – previously tasked with launching CRS-17 on May 4th, 2019 – is assigned to the mission and has been speedily refurbished for its next mission. Assuming the static fire goes well and there are no anomalies over the next 11 days, B1056 will launch twice in 78 days, a close second to B1048, B1052, and B1053 – all tied for first place at 74 days.

SpaceX technicians successfully retracted all four of Falcon 9 B1056’s landing legs, a first for the company’s Block 5 upgrade. (Tom Cross)

AMOS-17

Following CRS-18, SpaceX’s next launch is expected to occur soon after, launching Spacecom’s AMOS-17 communications satellite on a Falcon 9 (likely flight-proven) no earlier than early-August, although the tail-end of July is also a possibility. This mission will be extremely symbolic, owing to the fact that AMOS-17 is effectively an insurance-funded replacement for AMOS-6, destroyed on September 1st, 2016 when Falcon 9 suffered a catastrophic failure.

Thankfully, since that failure nearly three years ago, Falcon 9 has performed admirably, suffering no publicly-known failures or partial failures during its primary mission, although SpaceX has suffered two failed booster landing attempts over the same period.

Built by Boeing, AMOS-17 is likely just days away from being shipped to Florida to prepare for launch, assuming it’s not already on site. (Boeing)

It’s possible that the mystery booster spotted above is meant for AMOS-17, although that’s far from certain. Based on an image showing the core number, it is almost certainly B104X, while the second digit could easily be a 7 or a 9. If the booster in question is B1047, the odds are much better that it’s wrapping up refurbishment and waiting at 39A for CRS-18 to launch before heading to LC-40.

Starlink?

On the other hand, if the booster in question is B1049, it can be all but guaranteed that AMOS-17 will not launch on it, the reason being that – quite literally burned by its last experience with Falcon 9 – Spacecom probably doesn’t want to be the first SpaceX customer to launch on a thrice-flown booster. At the same time, SpaceX is probably exceptionally conscious of the need to ensure mission success and has no interest in adding risk to the AMOS-17 mission profile, no matter how minor.

SpaceX’s first 60 Starlink satellites – acting as a massive beta test – coast in orbit before being deployed from Falcon 9’s upper stage. (SpaceX)

B1049 launched for the third time in support of SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch on May 23rd, known internally as Starlink v0.9. At this point in time, B1046.3 is believed to be assigned to Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort (IFA) test, expected no earlier than Q4 2019. B1048.3’s status is unknown since the rocket successfully completed its third launch in February 2019. With B1049’s newfound history as the first SpaceX booster to launch on a completely internal mission, it would make a lot of sense for SpaceX to reuse B1049 for the next Starlink mission.

Simultaneously, SpaceX could demonstrate the first launch of a thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster without pushing that risk onto customers, opening up B1048 and future thrice-flown boosters for near-term commercial missions. A step further, this would set SpaceX up perfectly to use internal Starlink missions as full-fidelity demonstrations of booster reuse milestones, going from the four launches to five, six, seven, and beyond.

Falcon 9 booster B1049.3 rests horizontally at Port Canaveral after completing its third successful launch. (Pauline Acalin)

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Lifestyle

NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story

The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.

Published

on

By

The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.

Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot

Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.

The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.

The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.

The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Lucid denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”

Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”

Napoli said:

“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.

As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.

We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.

My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.

I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”

It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.

Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.

Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.

The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.

One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.

These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.

To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.

At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.

Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line

By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.

The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.

Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.

The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.

In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.

Continue Reading