News
SpaceX talks Moon mission as strategic stepping stone for Mars colony
Josh Brost, Senior Director of SpaceX’s Government Business Development was in attendance at a civil spaceflight conference in Washington D.C. yesterday, January 18, and provided a number of interesting details about SpaceX’s upcoming activities in 2018. Perhaps most intriguingly, he reiterated SpaceX’s interest in enabling exploration of the Moon and Mars, while also clarifying that the upcoming Falcon 9 upgrade will be the last major change to the vehicle for the indefinite future.
Although the audience may have been more focused on SpaceX’s potential lunar prospects, Brost provided a vision similar to CEO Elon Musk’s common-knowledge goal of Martian (and interplanetary) colonization. This lunar focus was in part evidenced by a pointed question from an audience member that triggered Brost’s subsequent suggestion that the Moon could be a more logical starting place for the company as it ramps up its deep space efforts and gradually slips beyond Earth orbit. This strategic and calculated extension of the aspirations of the launch company’s famous founder is a rational attempt to position SpaceX in ways that allow the company to derive as much value as possible from the US government’s recently revived interest in returning the US and its astronauts to the Moon.
- SpaceX’s 2017 BFS (now Starship) delivers cargo to a large lunar base. (SpaceX)
- Starship and a Martian city, circa 2017. (SpaceX)
To a large extent, his comments mesh with the vision Elon Musk reiterated at 2017’s September IAC.
SpaceX’s next-generation heavy-lift rocket and spaceship (BFR and BFS) are being designed to carry 150 metric tons into low Earth orbit while still recovering both the first and second stages, and will be purpose-built for rapid and complete reusability. BFR and BFS are also being intentionally designed to be relatively destination-agnostic. In other words, BFS will be capable of transporting cargo and eventually crew to a number of destinations in the solar system, be it the Moon, Mars, or beyond. The outer planets are almost certainly off limits for crew due to the sheer length of any journey beyond the orbit of Mars, but BFR, as it was discussed last year, would be capable of transporting unprecedented amounts of cargo almost anywhere in the solar system. Reusability is, of course, paramount to SpaceX’s operational intent with BFR/BFS; unless a very lucrative offer is made, it is highly unlikely that SpaceX will even consider expendable missions, thus partially limiting what the next-gen vehicle will be capable of.
Still, it will be an incredibly capable rocket even with full reusability. Add in the potential promise of mature in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), more simply the production of methane and oxygen propellant at the destination, and it will open a hundred entirely new worlds to serious scientific, exploratory, and economic prospecting throughout the solar system.
What’s next?
The question, then, is “when?” While Brost did not specifically provide any sort of timeline for BFR, aside from a brief statement on its readiness in “a few years,” he did describe in some detail the imminent end of serious Falcon 9 upgrades. A continual stream of upgrades and modifications has been one of the only real constants with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket: the original Falcon 9 is in almost every respect a completely different rocket when compared to the Falcon 9 Full Thrust (FT/1.2) of the present. However, one final leap is expected for Falcon 9, this time almost exclusively intended to improve the vehicle’s reliability and reusability as SpaceX rapidly approaches its first flights of Crew Dragon and dreams of rapid and repeated booster reuse.
While it was a small detail in an obscure sentence of one of several hour-long discussions, Brost specifically stated this:
Brost: with Block 5, goal it to lock down the design and fly the vehicle at very high flight rates. Innovation will focus on designing and testing BFR.
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) January 18, 2018
This is arguably the most exciting tidbit provided to us by SpaceX. While it was undeniably vague and rather less than crystal-clear, it can be interpreted as something like this: once Block 5 has been introduced and begun to fly and refly both regularly and successfully, the vast majority of SpaceX’s launch vehicle development expertise will begin to focus intensely on the development and testing of BFR and BFS.
Statements from just last week made by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell strengthen this intuitive leap considerably, because BFR and BFS are liable to require a considerable amount of attention as they proceed through design maturation and eventually begin physical hardware testing in Texas.
Shotwell’s comments implied that SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch facilities, currently under construction, would be ready to support “vehicle tests” as early as late 2018/early 2019. Comments from earlier in 2017 indicate that SpaceX (and Shotwell) perceive Boca Chica as a near-perfect location for BFR launches (and thus BFR testing, as well). Finally, Brost’s implication that SpaceX’s exceptional team of brilliant and innovative launch vehicle engineers would be refocused on BFR soon after Block 5 was stable also meshes with this rough timeline. If Falcon 9 Block 5 does indeed debut within the “next few months” as Brost stated, it will have likely reached some level of design and operational maturity by the end of 2018, assuming SpaceX’s expected launch cadence.
- SpaceX’s Falcon 9 ahead of the launch of Zuma. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
- A Falcon 9 lifts off from LC-40 carrying the highly secretive Zuma spacecraft. Hispasat 30W will launch from the same pad in just a few days. (Tom Cross)
- Falcon 9 1035 conducts its second landing after successfully launching CRS-13 on December 15. Improved reusability will be a huge focus of SpaceX in 2018. (NASA)
As of right now, SpaceX is already looking at a very busy February, and currently has as many as three commercial launches scheduled within a period of maybe three weeks (GovSat-1, PAZ, and Hispasat), maybe even four if Falcon Heavy completes its first static fire later this weekend. Musk estimated that SpaceX would complete 30 missions in 2018, and a cadence anywhere near three launches per month (let alone four) would easily push SpaceX past that goal and provide the company dozens of opportunities to test, launch, recover, and relaunch their new Block 5 version of Falcon 9. As such, while BFR is probably not going to reach fully integrated hardware development or testing in 2018, it is certainly a distinct possibility, and 2019 is far more promising for the company’s interplanetary aspirations.
For now, SpaceX’s 2018 focus is quite explicitly centered on ensuring the reliability of its Crew Dragon – set to debut NET August 2018 – and Falcon 9 as it strives to complete the development of both vehicles. Up next on the company’s busy schedule is another attempt at Falcon Heavy’s inaugural static fire on Saturday afternoon, as well as the flight-proven launch of GovSat-1/SES-16, currently NET January 30.
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings live from both coasts.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.





