News
SpaceX rapidly tests, ships Falcon 9 second stage for next NASA astronaut launch
SpaceX has shipped, tested, and delivered the new Falcon 9 upper stage tasked with carrying the company’s next Crew Dragon astronauts to orbit as early as October 30th.
Offering rare insight into the kind of timelines and margins SpaceX operates on for even its most important missions, a Falcon upper stage bearing NASA’s ‘worm’ logo and ‘meatball’ insignia was spotted by a local resident and photographer on October 2nd. Thus far, the only SpaceX rockets that have flown with NASA iconography are those supporting Crew Dragon launches, making them a dead giveaway for Crew Dragon launch hardware.
After Demo-2, SpaceX’s May 2020 astronaut launch debut, the company moved those decals from Falcon 9’s booster – liable to fly any number of non-NASA missions later in life – to each NASA crew mission’s expendable Falcon second stage (S2). Since then, Crew-1 (November 2020) and Crew-2 (April 2021) have both launched with NASA logos on their second stages and Crew-3 now looks set to continue that tradition.
Thanks to the watchful eye of local resident turned SpaceX fan Reagan Beck, it was actually possible to identify Crew-3’s Falcon 9 upper stage as soon as it was spotted at the company’s McGregor, TX development and testing facilities on October 2nd. While there was technically a tiny chance that it could be for one of several upcoming NASA spacecraft launches or even for Crew Dragon’s April 2022 Crew-4 mission, the likeliest destination by far for the NASA-branded Falcon S2 was Crew-3.
Due partially to the fact that Falcon booster qualification testing typically takes McGregor at least two or so weeks but mainly to the seemingly razor-thin schedule margins it would imply, there was some understandable skepticism that the upper stage was bound to launch Crew-3 just four weeks after it was first spotted. Moreso, Crew Dragon typically rolls out to the launch pad on Falcon 9 at least 5-7 days before launch to allow extra time for an integrated static fire, final checkouts, and a ‘dry dress’ practice runs for each mission’s crew.
Further, even after completing static fire qualification testing in McGregor, Crew-3’s Falcon stage would still need to be packaged up, transported more than a thousand miles by road, carefully unpackaged at a SpaceX launch site or hangar, outfitted with a Merlin Vacuum nozzle extension, installed on the mission’s Falcon 9 booster, and mated to Crew Dragon itself before that pad rollout can occur. In other words, rather than Crew-3’s exact October 30th launch date, the mission’s upper stage would likely need to arrive at SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Pad 39A launch facilities at least 9-10 days before launch.
Realistically, that means that from the moment the NASA-branded upper stage first spotted on a McGregor test stand, it had maybe two weeks to complete qualification testing and ship out to Pad 39A. With practically no context, that seemed like a stretch at the time – particularly for a single-engine Falcon second stage explicitly tasked with safely delivering four astronauts to orbit. In reality, McGregor’s Falcon S2 testing is apparently far faster than booster testing and the presumed Crew-3 stage seemingly passed qualification testing and vacated the test stand less than five days after it was installed.
In theory, that left the McGregor team about a week to complete post-test inspections, clean the interior of its propellant tanks, and prepare the stage for the last leg of its journey to Florida. SpaceX seemingly managed that without issue and a new Falcon upper stage potentially meant for Crew-3 was spotted in Florida just a few miles away from a SpaceX launch site on October 14th.
However, per additional photos and reports from Reagan, McGregor’s second stage test team has been incredibly busy over the last month or so. Prior to the Crew-3 stage’s arrival, another second stage completed qualification testing between September 21st and 28th. Crew-3’s S2 was installed on October 2nd and removed by the 7th. Wasting no time, another second stage was installed on the same stand on October 10th and apparently completed testing by the 13th – equivalent to a new upper stage qualified every week. Even if the Falcon stage that arrived at Cape Canaveral on October 14th isn’t Crew-3’s, then, Crew-3’s can’t be far behind.
Ultimately, SpaceX appears to be testing and shipping one of two integral Falcon 9 stages for a crucial, schedule-sensitive NASA astronaut launch with schedule margins measured in hours or single-digit days. That’s a far cry from competitors Arianespace and ULA and even NASA itself, which generally deliver flight hardware months in advance. Eleven years since Falcon 9’s launch debut, every Falcon second stage that has made it through stage separation – 127 of 127 – has successfully ignited its Merlin Vacuum engine one or several times and delivered its payload(s) to the correct orbit(s). Well over half of those successful launches were completed in the last three and a half years – and with the same Falcon 9 upper stage variant now routinely tasked with carrying astronauts to orbit.
In other words, delivering a NASA Crew mission’s Falcon second stage less than two weeks before the assembled rocket is scheduled to roll out to the launch pad may seem a tad reckless, it’s more likely that it’s evidence of SpaceX’s second stage build/test teams and facilities operating as an incredibly reliable, well-oiled machine.
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.
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 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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
