News
SpaceX rocket ready for second reusability record, Starlink launch attempt
One of SpaceX’s first upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters is ready for its second attempt to set a reusability record after its March 15th Starlink launch attempt aborted at the very last second.
Now scheduled to send SpaceX’s sixth batch of 60 Starlink satellites into orbit no earlier than (NET) 8:16 am EDT (12:16 UTC), March 18th, the mission will be Falcon 9 booster B1048’s fifth. Just four months ago, the booster successfully launched the first 60 upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites, also becoming the second SpaceX rocket to fly four times. While B1049 – B1048’s predecessor – was first to reach the four-flight milestone in May 2019, B1048 is now on track to take the next leap forward for Falcon 9 reusability.
First noted shortly after the abort on SpaceX’s March 15th launch webcast, the company later clarified that what could have been attributed to hardware failure was likely just an issue with software or sensors. Milliseconds before liftoff, Falcon 9’s autonomous flight computer seemingly didn’t like what it saw while interpreting the telemetry flowing in from the ignition of B1048’s nine Merlin 1D engines. Whatever the specific trouble, Falcon 9 believed that one or several of those Merlin 1D engines were producing more thrust than they should.
While likely oversimplifying what is a spectacularly complex logic system, the flight computers that control Falcon launch vehicles from T-1 minute to mission completion have to treat the messy uncertainty of reality through a black and white lens. Lacking the ability to heuristically interpret the data they process, the computers instead rely on algorithms that filter thousands of channels of telemetry into a handful of simple categories. If that data aligns with the computer’s expectations, things are okay. If the data doesn’t agree with the plan, things are not okay. There are, of course, many more levels of complexity, but the concept of operations remains mostly the same.
However, the telemetry itself is also a potential point of failure – bad data could lead the flight computer astray, concluding that things are okay when they aren’t or vice versa. To handle that potential failure mode, SpaceX relies on multiple strings of telemetry (and even multiple computers), all gathering and analyzing the same things simultaneously. If one of several redundant sensors starts to disagree with its brethren, reporting different data back to Falcon 9’s flight computers, it’s apparent that the sensor – not the thing it’s measuring – is likely at fault. Still, out of an abundance of caution, SpaceX avionics typically treat most “out-of-family” sensor readings as reason enough to delay or fully abort a launch. When a launch delay can be little more than an annoyance with a negligible cost, it’s almost universally better to be safe than sorry.
With Falcon 9 B1048’s March 15th false start, the rocket’s computer appears to have received conflicting readings from the same family (or families) of engine thrust sensors. While, as noted above, the fault almost certainly lay in an engine sensor or two and not in the engines themselves, the flight computer chose caution over expedience and halted the launch milliseconds before it would have otherwise commanded clamp release and lifted off.
Confirmed by SpaceX delaying the Starlink V1 L5 mission by just three days, the issue was almost certainly software or sensor-related. Given that SpaceX continues to push the envelope of launch vehicle reusability, it’s honestly more surprising that aborts like these aren’t more common. Instead, the reality is that Falcon 9 Block 5 – aside from delays from the occasional upper stage fault – almost never suffers hardware-related aborts when compared to the rocket’s prior iterations.
Featuring the second-ever flight-proven Falcon payload fairing, Falcon 9 B1048 will hopefully become the first SpaceX rocket to complete five orbital-class launches and landings. With more than a little luck, there’s also a smaller chance that the mission could mark the first time SpaceX successfully catches both fairing halves with twin ships Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief.
Tune in for SpaceX’s second Starlink V1 L5 launch attempt around 8am EDT (12:00 UTC) to catch the potentially record-breaking launch and landing live.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
