News
SpaceX set to launch its first previously-flown Block 5 rocket tonight
At the same time as SpaceX is readying its first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster reuse, the company’s second flight-proven Block 5 launch is already fast approaching and could be a strong contender to beat the company’s record of 72 days between launches of the same rocket.
A critical milestone for Falcon 9 Block 5
Formerly known as Telkom 4, SpaceX’s 1:18 AM EDT August 7th launch of the Merah Putih (Red and White in Indonesian) communications satellite will place the 5800 kg (12,800 lb) craft into a high-energy geostationary transfer orbit and will become the second heaviest GTO launch completed by SpaceX while still recovering the Falcon 9 booster. More importantly, however, Telkom 4 will also mark a critical milestone for Falcon 9 as the first reuse of a Block 5 booster.
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1025074341040533504
Designed to be many times more reusable and reliable than the already impressive Falcon 9 Full Thrust iterations preceding it, pathfinder booster B1046 could be capable of flying anywhere from 5, 10, or even 100 launches over the course of its flightworthy lifespan. It very well may require some considerable refinements to approach the true goal of orbital Falcon 9 launches with zero refurbishments between flights. CEO Elon Musk discussed those aspirations just before Block 5’s launch debut on May 11:
“We need to basically take the rocket from its landing pad, rotate it horizontal, stow the legs. Take it to the launch pad, attach an upper stage, attach a fairing with a payload. Then transport it out the launch pad, rotate it vertically, load propellant, and fly. And in principle, that is literally all that’s necessary.” – Elon Musk
This is understandably SpaceX’s goal, and it’s unlikely to happen just a few months after Block 5’s debut. Nevertheless, SpaceX appears to be already pushing the envelope of what they’ve previously accomplished with reusable Falcon 9s.
-
- B1046 lifts off for the first time on May 4th, 2018. (Teslarati)
-
- Falcon 9 B1046 returned to Port Canaveral aboard drone ship OCISLY on May 15. It will launch for the second time on August 4. (Tom Cross)
-
- Soon after, B1046 was spotted on its way to a refurbishment facility around a week after its May 11 launch debut. (Instagram /u/tersco)
Breaking records four months after launch debut
While B1046 is tracking towards a booster turnaround of roughly 92 days, compared with the current Block 4 booster record of 72 days, it’s worth noting that more than a majority of that time was likely spent in a state of unique analysis for the inaugural Block 5 rocket, involving extensive disassembly. As stated by Musk, “we need to take [B1046] apart to confirm that it does not need to be taken apart.” He also expected that teardown analysis to be “very rigorous”, indicating that B1046 probably deserves the crown for booster turnaround so long as one only accounts for time spent in transport and undergoing refurbishment.
Still, winning by a technicality is never any fun. On that note, SpaceX appears to be tracking towards a true record-breaking rocket reuse, potentially as few as 40 days between launches. Not one to let its other launch facilities be left out, this record-breaking turnaround attempt will occur on the West Coast with Falcon 9 B1048, the recovery of which has been extensively documented by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin over the last two weeks. NASASpaceflight.com confirmed that SpaceX intends to reuse B1048 for this mission for the NET mid-September launch and the record ~50 days between flights could help explain an unusually extensive and lengthy analysis of the rocket after it was lifted off drone ship Just Read The Instructions and placed on its dockside recovery stand.
-
- B1047 before the launch of Telstar 19V. (Tom Cross)
-
- Sooty B1047 arrives at Pad 39A’s horizontal integration facility (HIF), July 31st. (Reddit – Kent767)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 ahead of its launch debut, July 25th. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- After a successful launch and landing, B1048 stands tall in Port of San Pedro before being lowered and transported for its next launch. (Pauline Acalin)
After 10 days of recovery operations and analysis, B1048 was transported to SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory on August 6th, where it will presumably undergo refurbishment in preparation for its next launch. If B1046 and B1048 are representative samples of SpaceX’s growing rocket fleet, their stunningly quick turnarounds (especially for a largely new rocket that debuted less than 3-4 months prior) are likely a sign of things to come as SpaceX gets a handle on the real-world capabilities of its robust Block 5 upgrade.
It’s entirely possible that every Block 5 reuse to come can and will break the previous launch turnaround record, at least up to the point that SpaceX demonstrates a true 24-hour turnaround sometime next year. Stay tuned…
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
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.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
