News
SpaceX hints at mystery Falcon 9 missions with record breaking launch target
Speaking at the 2019 Smallsat Symposium, SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller announced that the company will try to break the launch record it set last year in 2019. That record stands at 21 successful missions, while President and COO Gwynne Shotwell stated in a May 2018 interview that she was anticipating 24-28 launches in 2018 and ~18 in 2019.
Ranging from Crew Dragon transporting astronauts and a duo of Falcon Heavy missions to perhaps ten commercial satellite launches, 2019 will undoubtedly be full of major events for SpaceX. However, SpaceX’s publicly-available launch manifest suggests that there will be no more than 18 government and commercial missions ready for the company to place in orbit before 2019 is out, implying that Hofeller may be hinting at launches that are not yet public.
Last May, SpaceX Prez Gwynne Shotwell was projecting 24 to 28 launches for 2018 but more like 18 for 2019. 21+ may be an “aspirational goal,” unless they’re counting Starship Hopper: https://t.co/RDbdPLA2Z7
— Alan Boyle (@b0yle) February 7, 2019
In just the last two years (24 months), SpaceX has successfully launched Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy an astounding 40 times, averaging approximately one launch every 2.5 weeks. In 2017, SpaceX demolished its own prior cadence record with 18 launches, a record the company’s exceptional workforce summarily proceeded to beat in 2018 with 21 successful missions launched. A vast majority of those 40 missions (27 to be precise) were the result of competitive, commercial contracts that SpaceX has been extremely successful at winning, thanks largely to the nearly unbeatable pricing of Falcon 9 and Heavy.
Much like most other launch providers, SpaceX plays its manifest extremely close to the chest, rarely revealing more than a blanket status update. For example, SpaceX’s website states that it has “has secured over 100 missions to its manifest, representing over $12 billion on contract.” Thanks to the general drought of official manifest information, the closest approximation to a real SpaceX manifest has traditionally been maintained by members of spaceflight fan communities like /r/SpaceX and NASASpaceflight.com, using the best aspects of organized crowdsourcing to create an extremely reliable snapshot of launch contracts scheduled within ~24 months.
However, compared to SpaceX’s claimed manifest of 100+ missions at an average cost per launch of ~$120M (twice Falcon 9’s $62M list price), crowdsourced SpaceX manifests – based on mostly public information – show fewer than 60 possible launch contracts between now and the end of 2024, a majority of which are for the US government (Crew and Cargo Dragon, Air Force GPS launches, and a few NASA spacecraft). Given SpaceX’s confident use of “secured” and “on contract”, the massive gap between public manifests and SpaceX’s claims leaves more than 40 launches almost completely in the dark.
-
- Falcon 9 B1046 lifts off for the third time with Spaceflight’s SSO-A rideshare mission. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1047 lifts off from Pad 39A, November 2018. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 appears out of the fog prior to its second orbital-class launch. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1050 is seen here just after liftoff. GPS III SV01’s Falcon 9 will feature no grid fins or landing legs. ☹ (Tom Cross)
A Big Falcon Mystery
Hofeller’s Feb. 6th comment is thus just a tiny taste of SpaceX’s potential mystery manifest, indicating that the company has more than 21 payloads to launch in 2019 while public info reveals no more than 17-18 likely to be ready. Where, then, might Hofeller find an extra 4-5 missions that public observers would not normally be aware of?
The simplest answer least reminiscent of a conspiracy theory is Starlink, SpaceX’s global constellation of at least 4425 satellites. While it would be an extraordinary achievement, Reuters reported in October 2018 that CEO Elon Musk had gone as far as firing multiple senior managers of the young satellite program to install new managers with a singleminded goal: begin launching operational Starlink satellites by mid-2019. A little over six months after Musk’s Starlink shake-up, SpaceX has pivoted towards rapidly building and launching around ~1500 first-generation satellites with more conservative capabilities to lower orbits relative to the original Starlink specification.
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural Feb. 2018 launch, showing off a utilitarian design. (SpaceX)
SpaceX also received a major Starlink contract from the US Air Force Research Laboratory worth almost $29 million, $19.1M of which was dispersed to SpaceX in October 2018. As of late 2018, the company’s Starlink branch had already pivoted toward ramping up production of the first several batches of operational Starlink satellites. According to a number of employees, SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites – known as Tintin A and B – were a programmatic success and continue to operate in orbit today after proving out a number of critical Starlink technologies. As such, it’s not out of the question for operational Starlink launches to begin as early as mid-2019, although Musk’s aggressive schedule is likely more than a little overly optimistic.
Assuming Starlink is greeted with a perfect production ramp and the first 10-20 spacecraft make it to orbit in good health by June 2019, it’s at least not inconceivable that a second and third launch could follow, perhaps with a 3-month launch cadence (June/September/December). The chances of this happening are probably about as slim as they come, but it does offer one possible way for SpaceX’s apparent ~18-launch manifest to jump up to 21 or more missions. The next most probable route to 21+ launches involves at least one or two Starlink-specific launches, followed by another one or two launches for a secretive US government customer like the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
The top secret Zuma spacecraft could be alive and well doing exactly what it was intended to: https://t.co/bK6x38KyIL
— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) January 12, 2018
In January 2018, SpaceX successfully launched a spacecraft called Zuma with no known customer aside from a generic US military agency. Despite an ambiguous potential failure of the satellite – attributed to a Northrop Grumman deployment mechanism – just days after launch, a variety of anonymous sources indicated that Zuma was just the first in a series of new military satellites with a focus on SpaceX as the primary launch provider. The value of the intensely-secretive program was estimated to be in the billions of dollars, implying a veritable constellation of mystery satellites that could provide SpaceX several additional launch contracts.
Now a little over 12 months distant from Zuma’s bizarre debut, it’s conceivable that the next phase of the secretive satellite program is scheduled sometime in 2019. Ultimately, the general public is unlikely to learn about any potential mystery SpaceX launches until they are imminent, barring comments from executives or sourced leaks making their way into the news. For now, we wait.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
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
