SpaceX
SpaceX set for expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 launch attempt after 48 hour scrub
Following a reported bug with Falcon 9 booster sensors that triggered a launch abort on the morning of December 18th, SpaceX has mitigated those problems and is ready to try again, hopefully placing the first of 10 new USAF GPS III satellites into orbit shortly after a 9:03 am EST (14:03 UTC) liftoff on December 20th.
Aside from being the first time SpaceX has launched a dedicated USAF mission won through a competitive procurement process, the launch of GPS III Space Vehicle 1 (SV01) will also be the first time SpaceX has intentionally expended a new Falcon 9 booster since July 2017, as well as the first time ever that a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster will be expended without attempting to land.
Team is working toward launch of GPS III SV01 tomorrow, December 20. Weather remains a challenge; currently forecasted at 20% favorable during the 26-minute launch window which opens at 9:03 a.m. EST, 14:03 UTC.
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) December 20, 2018
Standing vertical at SpaceX’s Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) pad, Block 5 booster B1054 looks undeniably incomplete or just off without grid fins and landing legs installed, like toast without butter or a Tesla with a V8 in place of its electric motors. The fact that Falcon 9 B1054 is a brand-new booster simply throws salt on the wound. However, the expendable configuration does serve as a reminder that, when it really comes down to it, SpaceX’s launch customers with as much sway as the Air Force ultimately have a major (if not final) say in the rocket’s trajectory.
If a customer demands an almost ridiculous level of redundancy, SpaceX likely has little to no say in that decision, even if it means that a brand new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster – designed to launch anywhere from 10-100 times in its lifetime – will have to be disposed of in the ocean after just one. While the performance-based decision to expend Falcon 9 appears to be far more of a security blanket than a practical necessity, it does still serve as a reminder that some exceptionally heavy payloads and/or high-energy orbits will inevitably preclude Falcon 9 or even Falcon Heavy from attempting booster landings. Down the road, major NASA or national security payloads will likely continue to demand expendable configurations, at least until BFR (Starship/Super Heavy) can take over from Falcon 9 and Heavy.
A sunny afternoon at SLC-40 — Following today’s scrub, SpaceX graciously let us photographers revisit the pad to check on our cameras ahead of tomorrow morning’s launch of Falcon 9 and GPS III. pic.twitter.com/7vzIDl9W9p
— John Kraus (@johnkrausphotos) December 18, 2018
Although SpaceX does appear to be serious Thursday’s launch attempt, the weather conditions are far from desirable thanks to the forecasted presence of “Electric Field, Cumulus/Thick Cloud, Disturbed Weather”, as well as the likelihood of strong upper-level winds near the Florida coast. With just a 20% chance that weather conditions will permit a launch and a brief 26-minute window of opportunity, there is little to no wiggle room for SpaceX to wait for a figurative break in the clouds, and another scrub seems extremely likely.
If the weather does force SpaceX to call off Thursday’s attempt, additional opportunities appear to be available on Friday (60% favorable) and Saturday (80% favorable). For now, however, Falcon 9 B1054 appears to have bought itself a few extra days to continue being an intact and (mostly) dry rocket. Catch the watch live at the link below.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reiterates rapid Starship V3 timeline with next launch in sight
Musk shared the update in a brief post on X, writing, “Starship flies again next month.”
Elon Musk has confirmed that Starship will fly again next month, reiterating SpaceX’s aggressive timeline for the first launch of its Starship V3 rocket.
Musk shared the update in a brief post on X, writing, “Starship flies again next month.” The CEO’s post was accompanied by a video of Starship’s Super Heavy booster being successfully caught by a launch tower in Starbase, Texas.
The timeline is notable. In late January, Musk stated that Starship’s next flight, Flight 12, was expected in about six weeks. This placed the expected mission date sometime in March. That estimate aligned with SpaceX’s earlier statement that Starship’s 12th flight test “remains targeted for the first quarter of 2026.”
If the vehicle does indeed fly next month, it would mark the debut of Starship V3, the upgraded platform expected to feature the rocket’s new Raptor V3 engines.
Raptor V3 is designed to deliver significantly higher thrust than earlier versions while reducing cost and weight. Starship V3 itself is expected to be optimized for manufacturability, a critical step if SpaceX intends to scale production toward frequent launches for Starlink, lunar missions, and eventually Mars.
Starship V3 is widely viewed as the version that transitions the program from experimental testing to true operational scaling. Previous iterations have completed multiple integrated flight tests, with mixed outcomes but steady progress. Expectations are high that SpaceX is now working on Starship’s refinement.
An aggressive launch schedule supports several priorities at once. It advances Starlink’s next-generation satellite deployment, supports NASA’s lunar ambitions under Artemis, and keeps SpaceX on track for its longer-term Moon and Mars objectives.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.