News
SpaceX's next rocket launch on track to break a 20-month-old booster reusability record
Scheduled as early as next week, SpaceX’s next rocket launch could see the company break a 20-month-old record that is closely intertwined with the reusability of its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters.
Unsurprisingly, that record – if broken – will tag along on one of up to two dozen Starlink satellite launches SpaceX has planned for 2020. The fourth launch of upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites and fifth dedicated launch overall, SpaceX’s next Starlink mission – deemed Starlink V1 L4 – is currently set to lift off no earlier than (NET) 10:46 am EST (15:46 UTC) on February 15th. As usual, the mission’s Falcon 9 booster will attempt to land aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), while SpaceX recovery ships Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief may attempt to catch both Falcon payload fairing halves for the third time ever.
According to Next Spaceflight, SpaceX has assigned thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster B1056 to the Starlink launch, potentially making it the fourth SpaceX rocket to complete four separate launches. However, while SpaceX’s fourth fourth-flight milestone is significant, B1056 is – barring delays – also set to break a record that could be even more important for rocket reusability.
SpaceX’s 10th finished Falcon 9 Block 5 booster, B1056 completed a flawless launch and landing debut on May 4th, 2019, sending Cargo Dragon on its way to orbit for CRS-17, the spacecraft’s 17th International Space Station (ISS) resupply mission. Instead of a more normal return-to-launch-site (RTLS) recovery at SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral-based Landing Zone, SpaceX opted to land the booster on drone ship OCISLY.
It’s believed that SpaceX and NASA made that decision out of an abundance of caution after an attempted LZ recovery following the Falcon 9 B1050’s CRS-16 Cargo Dragon launch saw the booster lose control and crash-land in the Atlantic Ocean less than a mile off the coast.
Regardless, SpaceX’s subsequent CRS-17 Cargo Dragon launch went exactly as planned and Falcon 9 B1056 landed smoothly aboard drone ship OCISLY. Less than two days after returning to Port Canaveral, B1056 even became the first SpaceX booster to have its landing legs retracted – a small but significant step along the path to true airplane-like reusability. 82 days later, B1056 successfully completed its second launch, sending another Cargo Dragon its CRS-18 resupply mission before landing at LZ-1. The booster completed its third mission a bit less than five months later, placing the 6800 kg (15,000 lb) Kacific-1 communications satellite into geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) on December 16th, 2019.
Now, SpaceX wants to launch B1056 for the fourth time as early as February 15th. Close observers will note that that would imply just 61 days between B1056’s Kacific-1 and Starlink V1 L4 launches, a feat that would make it SpaceX’s fastest ‘booster turnaround’ ever. Currently, that record stands at 71 days and was actually achieved just a month after SpaceX debuted Falcon 9’s reusability-focused Block 5 upgrade. However, that record turnaround was actually achieved by the B1045, SpaceX’s last Falcon 9 Block 4 booster.
Surprisingly, the closest SpaceX’s upgraded Block 5 rockets have gotten to beating B1045’s 71-day record was when the company turned around Falcon Heavy side boosters B1052 and B1053 in just 74 days before completing the giant rocket’s third orbital launch since February 2018. Now, barring calamities worthy of a ten-day delay, it looks likely that Falcon 9 booster B1056 will beat out the current record-holder by up to ten days (~15%).
According to a SpaceX engineer’s January 2020 presentation, SpaceX is currently capable of landing, refurbishing, and relaunching Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters in about a month (~30 days). With Falcon 9 B1056’s Starlink V1 L4 launch, SpaceX will hopefully be taking its biggest step in 20 months towards the goal of reusing Falcon boosters in a matter of days.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
