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.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
