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.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
