News
SpaceX indefinitely delays second Falcon 9 launch in two weeks
For the second time in less than two weeks, SpaceX has indefinitely delayed a Falcon 9 launch after discovering apparent issues with the rocket less than a day before liftoff.
Japanese startup ispace’s misfortune also marks the eighth time in less than two months that SpaceX has delayed or aborted a Falcon 9 launch for unspecified technical reasons less than 24 hours before liftoff. The streak of delays is unusual after 12 months of record-breaking execution, over the course of which SpaceX has successfully completed 60 orbital launches with just a handful of last-minute technical delays.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
The number of last-day delays and Falcon 9 launch aborts has abruptly skyrocketed in recent months, possibly indicating that a single problem or change is at least partially responsible for the trend. The streak began in early October and has continued through the end of November, resulting in eight delays in two months, with impacts ranging from minutes to days or even weeks. In all but one instance, SpaceX’s only explanation was a need for more time for “data review” or “checkouts” of the rocket, its payload, or both.
SpaceX consistently announces launch delays on Twitter, making it possible to collate when the company has stated it was “standing down” from a launch attempt or “now targeting” a later launch date for technical reasons. In the 18+ months between March 2021 and October 2022, SpaceX announced only three technical delays after publicly scheduling a launch (one last-second abort and two minor “additional checkouts” delays). Adding to the oddity, SpaceX reported at least 15 similar delays between January 2020 and March 2021.
A decrease in the frequency of technical issues is a generally expected outcome of a competent organization gaining experience with the operation of a complex, new system (like a launch vehicle). By all appearances, that’s the pattern SpaceX was following: a drastic drop in the number of technical launch aborts even as the pace of Falcon 9 launches soared to new heights. But within the last two months, the frequency of technical delays has skyrocketed from close to zero to higher than any point in recent SpaceX history.
Without context, it’s impossible to say if there is an invisible thread connecting the recent string of delays. There are many possible explanations, including workforce fatigue, management changes, policy changes, and factory issues. It’s even possible that the seemingly sudden onset was caused by an intentional change of risk posture: for example, increasing sensitivity to off-nominal signals that had been observed before but were discounted enough to avoid launch delays.
As part of its effort to continually improve existing systems and processes, SpaceX could have changed things too much or removed one too many steps. While unlikely, it’s also possible that the recent uptick in delays is merely a coincidence. Regardless, if the trend continues, it will be difficult for SpaceX to increase its launch cadence any further – particularly toward CEO Elon Musk’s stated goal of 100 launches in 2023. Delays also increase launch costs and disrupt customer plans, incentivizing a return to smoother operations as quickly as possible.
Most concerning is a recent pair of unrelated launches that have become indefinitely delayed. Starlink 2-4, first scheduled to launch on November 18th, has yet to receive a new launch date after SpaceX apparently discovered problems after a Falcon 9 static fire test on November 17th. Less than two weeks later, SpaceX has indefinitely delayed a second Falcon 9 launch – Japanese startup ispace’s first Moon landing attempt – “after further inspections of the launch vehicle and data review.”
Ultimately, launch delays are a fundamental part of spaceflight, and it’s better to keep a rocket on the ground when there is any uncertainty about its readiness for flight. Nonetheless, big changes in the frequency of delays are still noteworthy, especially when SpaceX itself does not typically explain the cause of delays for non-NASA missions.
SpaceX has several more Falcon 9 launches firmly scheduled in December. It remains to be seen how exactly the indefinite delays of Starlink 2-4 and HAKUTO-R will impact those upcoming launches. Starlink 4-37, for example, was scheduled to launch from the same pad as HAKUTO-R as early as December 6th, but that date will slip for every day HAKUTO-R is delayed. A SpaceX ship tasked with recovering HAKUTO-R’s Falcon 9 fairing appears to be heading back to port, indicating a delay of at least two or three days.
Elon Musk
Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story
Tesla confirmed HW3 vehicles cannot run unsupervised FSD, replacing its free upgrade promise with a discounted trade-in.
Tesla has officially confirmed that early vehicles with its Autopilot Hardware 3 (HW3) will not be capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving, while extending a path forward for legacy owners through a discounted trade-in program. The announcement came by way of Elon Musk in today’s Tesla Q1 2026 earnings call.
🚨 Our LIVE updates on the Tesla Earnings Call will take place here in a thread 🧵
Follow along below: pic.twitter.com/hzJeBitzJU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
The history here matters. HW3 launched in April 2019, and Tesla sold Full Self-Driving packages to owners on the understanding that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. Some owners paid between $8,000 and $15,000 for FSD during that period. For years, as FSD’s AI models grew more demanding, HW3 vehicles fell progressively further behind, eventually landing on FSD v12.6 in January 2025 while AI4 vehicles moved to v13 and then v14. When Musk acknowledged in January 2025 that HW3 simply could not reach unsupervised operation, and alluded to a difficult hardware retrofit.
The near-term offering is more concrete. Tesla’s head of Autopilot Ashok Elluswamy confirmed on today’s call that a V14-lite will be coming to HW3 vehicles in late June, bringing all the V14 features currently running on AI4 hardware. That is a meaningful software update for owners who have been frozen at v12.6 for over a year, and it represents genuine effort to keep older hardware relevant. Unsupervised FSD for vehicles is now targeted for Q4 2026 at the earliest, with Musk describing it as a gradual, geography-limited rollout.
For HW3 owners, the over-the-air V14-lite update is welcomed, and the discounted trade-in path at least acknowledges an old obligation. What happens next with the trade-in pricing will define how this chapter ultimately gets written. If Tesla prices the hardware path fairly, acknowledges what early adopters are owed, and delivers V14-lite on the June timeline it committed to today, it has a real opportunity to convert one of the longest-running sore subjects among early adopters into a loyalty story.
Elon Musk
Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go
Tesla’s Optimus factory in Texas targets 10 million robots yearly, with 5.2 million square feet under construction.
Tesla’s Q1 2026 Update Letter, released today, confirms that first generation Optimus production lines are now well underway at its Fremont, California factory, with a pilot line targeting one million robots per year to start. Of bigger note is a shared aerial image of a large piece of land adjacent to Gigafactory Texas, that Tesla has prominently labeled “Optimus factory site preparation.”
Permit documents show Tesla is seeking to add over 5.2 million square feet of new building space to the Giga Texas North Campus by the end of 2026, at an estimated construction investment of $5 billion to $10 billion. The longer term production target for that facility is 10 million Optimus units per year. Giga Texas already sits on 2,500 acres with over 10 million square feet of existing factory floor, and the North Campus expansion is being built to support multiple projects, including the dedicated Optimus factory, the Terafab chip fabrication facility (a joint Tesla/SpaceX/xAI venture), a Cybercab test track, road infrastructure, and supporting facilities.
Credit: TESLA
Texas makes strategic sense beyond the existing infrastructure. The state’s tax structure, lower labor costs relative to California, and the proximity to Tesla’s AI training cluster Cortex 1 and 2, both located at Giga Texas and now totaling over 230,000 H100 equivalent GPUs, means the Optimus software stack and the factory producing the hardware will share the same campus. Tesla’s Q1 report also confirmed completion of the AI5 chip tape out in April, the inference processor designed specifically to power Optimus units in the field.
As Teslarati reported, the Texas facility is intended to house Optimus V4 production at full scale. Musk told the World Economic Forum in January that Tesla plans to sell Optimus to the public by end of 2027 at a price between $20,000 and $30,000, stating, “I think everyone on earth is going to have one and want one.” He has previously pegged long term demand for general purpose humanoid robots at over 20 billion units globally, citing both consumer and industrial use cases.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday afternoon. Here’s what the company reported compared to what Wall Street analysts expected.
The earnings results come after Tesla reported a miss on vehicle deliveries for the first quarter, delivering 358,023 vehicles and building 408,386 cars during the three-month span.
As Tesla transitions more toward AI and sees itself as less of a car company, expectations for deliveries will begin to become less of a central point in the consensus of how the quarter is perceived.
Nevertheless, Tesla is leaning on its strong foundation as a car company to carry forward its AI ambitions. The first quarter is a good ground layer for the rest of the year.
Tesla Q1 2026 Earnings Results
Tesla’s Earnings Results are as follows:
- Non-GAAP EPS –Â $0.41 Reported vs. $0.36 Expected
- Revenues –Â $22.387 billion vs. $22.35 billion Expected
- Free Cash Flow –Â $1.444 billion
- Profit –Â $4.72 billion
Tesla beat analyst expectations, so it will be interesting to see how the stock responds. IN the past, we’ve seen Tesla beat analyst expectations considerably, followed by a sharp drop in stock price.
On the same token, we’ve seen Tesla miss and the stock price go up the following trading session.
Tesla will hold its Q1 2026 Earnings Call in about 90 minutes at 5:30 p.m. on the East Coast. Remarks will be made by CEO Elon Musk and other executives, who will shed some light on the investor questions that we covered earlier this week.
You can stream it below. Additionally, we will be doing our Live Blog on X and Facebook.
Q1 2026 Earnings Call at 4:30pm CT https://t.co/pkYIaGJ32y
— Tesla (@Tesla) April 22, 2026
Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story
Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go
