News
SpaceX first orbital spacecraft set to smash reusability record on last launch
The first orbital spacecraft designed and built by SpaceX is set to smash a reusability record on its 20th and final International Space Station (ISS) resupply launch, hopefully ending an exceptional career with yet another noteworthy achievement.
After a rocket-related hardware issue forced a four-day delay, a flight-proven Cargo Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket are set to lift off no earlier than (NET) 11:50 pm EST, March 6th (04:50 UTC, March 7th) on NASA’s 20th and final SpaceX Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-20) mission. Although SpaceX’s final CRS1 launch, 20th mission milestone, flight-proven Dragon, and fairly quick Falcon 9 booster turnaround are all significant and exciting in their own ways, the most noteworthy technical aspect of CRS-20 can be found in the Dragon capsule that will soon be perched atop the tip of the rocket.
Shared on March 1st alongside confirmation of a successful Falcon 9 wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire at its Cape Canaveral, Florida Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) pad, SpaceX revealed that Cargo Dragon capsule C112 (C1: Dragon 1; 12: capsule #12) will be supporting CRS-20 as early as this Friday. If all goes according to plan, it will be the spacecraft’s third cargo mission to the ISS since February 2017, becoming the third orbital SpaceX vehicle to do so. Even more significantly, C112 is poised to crush Cargo Dragon’s own previous record for the shortest time between two orbital launches.
Back in June 2017, SpaceX became the first private company in history to successfully reuse an orbital-class spacecraft on its CRS-11 Cargo Dragon mission, itself the first private spacecraft in history to successfully rendezvous with the space station. Since then, all but one CRS mission has featured an orbit-proven Dragon capsule, making CRS-20 the ninth time SpaceX will attempt to launch a spacecraft into orbit for the second (or third) time.
In other words, nearly half of all of SpaceX’s NASA CRS missions have featured flight-proven spacecraft, while several have also launched with flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters. Still, while extremely impressive that SpaceX has managed to convince the risk-averse space agency to fly several dozen tons of critical hardware on flight-proven rockets and spacecraft, Cargo Dragon capsule reuse has always been a comparatively lengthy and complex process.
Back in July 2017, just a month after SpaceX’s first successful Cargo Dragon reuse, CEO Elon Musk offered some insight into the capability’s potential value.
“Musk said he expects the next Dragon reuse and all future reuses to save SpaceX nearly 50% of the cost of manufacturing an entirely new spacecraft. Musk admitted that the first refurbishment of Dragon likely ended up costing as much or more than a new vehicle, but this is to be expected for the first attempt to reuse any sort of space hardware that must survive some form of reentry heating and saltwater immersion.”
Teslarati.com — July 21st, 2017
Ultimately, SpaceX has almost certainly realized Musk’s ambition of cutting the cost of orbital space station resupply missions in half (at least). Scheduled to launch on March 6th, Cargo Dragon capsule C112 last launched in December 2018, reentering Earth’s atmosphere and splashing down on January 13th, 2019. With CRS-20, the capsule could thus crush the previous record – 19 months – by more than 25%. Measured from splashdown to the capsule’s shipment to the launch pad, SpaceX may have spent less than a year refurbishing the Cargo Dragon spacecraft, likely more than a 50% improvement over all past refurbishment operations.
CRS-20 should thus mark a climactic and fitting end to Cargo Dragon 1’s nine-year spaceflight career. While bittersweet that the spacecraft and its many siblings will likely never fly again, Musk has said that Dragon 2 (Crew Dragon) – the spacecraft intended to replace it – is dramatically easier (and thus cheaper) to reuse than Dragon 1. As such, SpaceX should have no issue continuing its trend of lowering the cost of access to space after it begins space station cargo deliveries under its CRS2 NASA contract later this year.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
