News
SpaceX’s partial Falcon 9 landing failure could delay next West Coast launch
According to statements made by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and media outlet CBC, the launch of the agency’s next-generation Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) – a trio of Earth observation satellites weighing >4200 kg (9300 lbs) – has been “postponed … indefinitely” as a consequence of SpaceX’s first failed Falcon 9 booster landing since 2016.
Offering a rare glimpse into some of the extensive planning that goes on behind the scenes to make commercial rocket launches happen, CSA has indicated that the booster it planned to launch on – Falcon 9 B1050 – suffered an untimely (partial) demise during a recovery attempt shortly after successfully launching the CRS-16 Cargo Dragon mission on December 5th, 2018. While the booster shockingly was returned to dry land mostly intact after landing in the Atlantic, SpaceX and CSA must now settle on a different Falcon 9 to launch the mission.
A problem with a SpaceX booster rocket has postponed the launch of a $1 billion Canadian satellite program indefinitely. https://t.co/45qirdId5j @DeanBeeby
— CBC News (@CBCNews) January 15, 2019
Goldilocks and the Falcon boosters
While it doesn’t look like there are only three possible rocket options for the Radarsat constellation and SpaceX to choose from, the situation of picking a new booster this late in the launch flow is far less simple than it might initially seem. First and foremost, SpaceX likely needs to do its best to accommodate the preferences of customers CSA and MDA (MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.) regardless of how disruptive they may be. Originally targeted for sometime in November 2018, RCM’s launch slipped several months to the second half of February 2019 due to what CSA described as “higher priority missions [for]the US Government and a backlog of launches from…Vandenberg” late last year.
While that alone does not point directly towards any obvious explanations, CBC reporter Dean Beeby’s implication that the mission’s launch is now “postponed…indefinitely” offers a hint of an answer, although it could also be manufactured hyperbole where there actually is none. If CSA actually indicated that the launch is now postponed indefinitely, the only clear explanation for a launch delay greater than a month or so as a result of Falcon 9 B1050’s unplanned unavailability would lie in some unique aspect of that particular Falcon 9 booster.
Although each rocket SpaceX builds can be quite different from each other in terms of general quirks and bugs, the only obvious difference between B1050 and any other flight-proven Falcon 9 booster in SpaceX’s fleet was its low-energy CRS-16 trajectory, something that would have enabled a uniquely gentle reentry and landing shortly after launch. In other words, likely out of heaps of caution and conservatism if it is the case, customers CSA and MDA may have requested (or contractually demanded) that SpaceX launch the Radarsat constellation on a flight-proven Falcon 9 with as little wear and tear as possible, in which case B1050 would have been hard to beat.
“Unfortunately, the landing of [Falcon 9 B1050] was unsuccessful, preventing SpaceX from recuperating the reusable components for the launch of RCM. We continue to work closely with MDA and SpaceX to confirm a launch date for RCM.” – Spokesperson Audrey Barbier, Canadian Space Agency (CSA), 01/15/2019
If the customers remained steadfast in their (speculated) request for a gently-used flight-proven Falcon 9 even after B1050’s partial landing failure, the next most comparable booster would be Falcon 9 B1051 after launching the first orbital Crew Dragon mission sometime no earlier than (NET) February 2019. Aside from B1051, there will be no obvious booster alternative available for at least several months after Crew Dragon’s launch debut, unless NASA requests that its next contracted Cargo Dragon mission (CRS-17) launch on a new Falcon 9 rocket in March 2019.
Engines stabilized rocket spin just in time, enabling an intact landing in water! Ships en route to rescue Falcon. pic.twitter.com/O3h8eCgGJ7
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2018
Warmer…
If a less lightly-used booster becomes an option for CSA/MDA, there are immediately multiple clear options available as long as SpaceX is will to accept possible delays to subsequent launches to quickly reassign a flight-proven Falcon 9. Falcon 9 B1046 – the first SpaceX rocket ever to launch three orbital-class missions – is being refurbished at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California facilities a few hundred miles south of Vandenberg. B1047 completed its second successful launch in November 2018 and is being refurbished – along with the twice-flown B1048 – in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Finally, Falcon 9 B1049 completed its second successful launch just days ago (January 11th) and is being processed off of drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) at this very moment.
B1047 or B1048 have likely been assigned to the imminent NET February 18th launch of Indonesian commsat PSN-6 and SpaceIL’s Beresheet Moon lander, meaning that the best possible option for Radarsat – short of swallowing months of additional delays – is a decision between B1047/B1048 or B1046, with B1049 also a candidate if a slip into March or April is an option. Still, all of those options would require Canada and MDA to fly on a Falcon 9’s third (or fourth) launch, perhaps an unacceptable compromise or perceived risk for certain customers.
-
- Falcon 9 B1046 is processed in Port of LA shortly after its third successful launch and landing, December 2018. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1047 is pictured here beneath an upper stage and satellite Es’hail-2 prior to its second launch. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 landed at LZ-4 after its second launch and is now being refurbished on the opposite coast. (SpaceX)
Meanwhile, schedule pressures have meant that SpaceX is pushing as hard as possible to prepare three new Block 5 Falcon Heavy boosters for the giant rocket’s second and third launches, scheduled as early as March and April 2019. While unconfirmed, it appears that SpaceX may have chosen to manufacture all three of those boosters one after the other, meaning that the company’s Hawthorne factory would have been primarily focused on delivering those rockets for at least 2-3 months start to finish. In short, it does not appear that there is or will be an unflown Falcon 9 booster available for Radarsat anytime soon.
Whether the customers wait for a new booster to be produced, wait for Crew Dragon’s first launch to wrap up, or accept being the third or fourth launch of a well-scorched Falcon 9, RCM’s next published launch target should offer a hint as to how CSA, MDA, and SpaceX ultimately decided to respond to Falcon 9 B1050’s dip in the Atlantic OCean.
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
