News
SpaceX wraps up Falcon 9 launch, sends drone ship to sea for the next one
SpaceX’s two East Coast drone ships have passed each other by as one returned from the company’s most recent Falcon 9 launch and the other headed to sea for the next one.
An unsurprising consequence of SpaceX’s extraordinary 2022 launch cadence goal, it just so happened that the company’s next launch was scheduled such that the upcoming Starlink mission’s drone ship left Port Canaveral at almost the exact moment that another drone ship was returning from its last launch. The timing was so perfect that the two converted barges sailed past each other just a thousand or so feet apart and just a few thousand feet outside of the mouth of the port both call home.
Drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) was returning to port after about a week at sea with Falcon 9 booster B1062, which successfully launched Egypt’s Nilesat-301 communications satellite into a supersynchronous geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) on June 8th. Heading in the opposite direction, drone ship A Shortfall of Gravitas (ASOG) – towed by support ship Doug – left port and began its journey about 650 kilometers (~400 mi) downrange to support Starlink 4-19, SpaceX’s next launch.
Nilesat-301 was SpaceX’s 23rd launch of 2022 and Falcon 9 B1062’s seventh launch overall, as well as the booster’s sixth launch in less than 12 months. In early 2022, CEO Elon Musk announced that SpaceX was targeting an average of one launch per week throughout the calendar year. He later revised that target to 60 launches or 1.15 launches per week after a few months of undeniable success. Set in 2021, SpaceX’s annual record is 31 Falcon launches, followed by 26 in 2020. In 2022, SpaceX is on track to launch more than 26 times in the first half of the year. In fact, after Nilesat-301, the company has another five missions tentatively scheduled to launch in June for a total of 28 in H1 2022 if all manage to avoid significant delays.
Starlink 4-19 is scheduled to launch from SpaceX’s NASA Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad no earlier than (NET) 10:50 am EDT (14:50 UTC) on Friday, June 17th. SpaceX’s schedule for the mission will be exceptionally tight and likely offer few – if any – backup opportunities before the end of the month, owing to the company’s need to launch Cargo Dragon on a NASA space station resupply mission as early as June 28th. Unless CRS-25’s launch date has slipped again, the current schedule leaves SpaceX only a handful of days to convert Pad 39A back into its Dragon configuration immediately after Starlink 4-19.
While merely the 48th in a long line of dedicated Starlink internet satellite launches, Starlink 4-19 will be an important mission for SpaceX for a number of other reasons. First, it will be the 100th reuse of a Falcon booster since the first in March 2017. If all goes well, it will also mark SpaceX’s 50th consecutively successful Falcon booster landing. Perhaps most significantly, Starlink 4-19 could be Falcon 9’s 130th consecutively successful launch campaign – just four successes away from breaking the world record of 133 consecutive successes set by variants of Russia’s Soyuz/R-7 rocket.
SpaceX is also scheduled to launch Germany’s SARah-1 radar satellite and a group of rideshare payloads out of California no earlier than (NET) June 18th. Another mysterious launch is scheduled out of SpaceX’s LC-40 Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) pad as early as June 19th. Finally, two more Falcon 9 rockets are scheduled to launch the SES-22 geostationary communications satellite on June 27th or 28th and Cargo Dragon’s CRS-25 resupply mission on June 28th.
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
