News
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 set for first expendable launch with USAF satellite
SpaceX’s most significant US Air Force launch contract yet is set to kick off with a (NET) December 18 launch of the first of 10 next-gen GPS satellites, known as GPS III Space Vehicle 1 (SV01). Thus far, SpaceX has won all five competitive GPS III launch contracts offered thus far by the USAF and – depending on Falcon 9’s performance this launch – could win several more.
Aside from contract victories, SpaceX’s first GPS III launch will be marked by yet another first for the company’s May 2018-debuted Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket. This first is not quite as desirable, though: sans landing legs and titanium grid fins, the new Block 5 booster will be expended after launch and will make no attempt to land.
Via @USAirForce: First GPS III satellite, AKA “Vespucci,” encapsulated in fairing on 12/7 ahead of #SpaceX Falcon 9 launch NET 12/18. This is the company’s first GPS mission and is expendable, so there will be no booster recovery.
(📸: @LockheedMartin) pic.twitter.com/5aOWy1tI5k
— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) December 11, 2018
At this point in time, the first official confirmation that Falcon 9 will be flying in an expendable configuration was given in a handful of comments made by Vice President of Launch and Build Reliability Hans Koenigsmann at a Dec. 5 press conference. While focused primarily on the topic at hand (SpaceX’s successful launch of the CRS-16 Cargo Dragon), members of the press managed to squeeze in a few minimally related questions which Hans graciously answered. Speaking about SpaceX’s imminent GPS III launch, Hans noted that,
“GPS is not landing a booster. It doesn’t have the landing hardware, or the majority of the landing hardware. … I looked at the booster yesterday, it’s in great shape and getting integrated in the hangar.
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
- Spotted by local photographer Tom McCool on November 27th, this 39A-located Falcon 9 booster is the likeliest candidate for the first GPS III launch. (Tom McCool)
Hans also told members of the audience that he believed the expendable profile had stemmed from a customer (i.e. USAF) requirement based on a need for extra performance:
“Regarding GPS not landing, I think this is a customer requirement to have all the performance for the mission. It’s a challenging mission.“
While there was previously some doubt as to whether Falcon 9 was actually incapable of attempting a booster landing after launch, Mr. Koenigsmann’s offhand suggestion that GPS III launches would be “challenging mission[s]” makes it far more likely that the USAF’s given mission profile genuinely demands all of Falcon 9’s performance – not enough propellant will remain for Falcon 9 to attempt recovery. There is, however, still some ambiguity in Hans’ answer.
If Falcon 9 will be expended solely as a consequence of mission performance requirements despite the oddly low payload mass (~3800 kg) and comparatively low-energy orbit (~20,000 km), the only possible explanation for no attempted recovery would be the need for Falcon 9’s upper stage to perform a lengthy second burn after a long coast in orbit. However, the mission parameters the USAF shopped around for would have placed the GPS III satellite into an elliptical orbit of 1000 km by 20,181 km, an orbit that would unequivocally allow Falcon 9 to attempt a drone ship recovery.
- Falcon 9 B1047.2 is seen here conducting its second successful drone ship landing. (SpaceX)
- In a more perfect world, Falcon 9 would have been responsible for the rainbow. (SpaceX)
- Lockheed Martin’s GPS III (SV 01-10) satellite.
- A GPS III spacecraft spreads one of its solar array wings. (USAF)
The reasoning behind this is simple: SpaceX routinely recovers Falcon 9 boosters after far more energetic launches. For example, Falcon 9’s November 15th launch placed the 5300 kg Es’hail-2 satellite into an orbit of 200 km by 37,700 km, after which Falcon 9 B1047.2 performed its second successful landing on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You. A prevailing second theory for the expendable mission lies in the Air Force’s notoriously stodgy and sometimes irrational revulsion at the slightest hint of risk or change – to minimize perceived risk, the USAF could have thus demanded that SpaceX expend Falcon 9 regardless of whether it was capable of doing so.
For GPS III SV01, it appears that only time will tell whether the satellite ends up in an orbit that can properly explain the booster’s premature demise. Given that SpaceX has a full four additional GPS III launches currently on the books, it will be a shame to see a veritable fleet of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters tossed into the sea after just a single launch each.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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.
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.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
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’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.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
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.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
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.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
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.







