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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
