News
SpaceX Starlink launch ambitions just saved a space station resupply mission from bigger delays
SpaceX’s ambitious 2020 Starlink launch goals have unintentionally saved a Cargo Dragon spacecraft mission from much longer delays after a major part of its Falcon 9 rocket had to be replaced at the last second.
Known as SpaceX’s 20th NASA Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-20) mission, SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon spacecraft was initially scheduled to launch supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) as early as March 2nd, 2020, a date that recently slipped four days to 11:50 pm EDT (04:50 UTC), March 6th. Simultaneously, a separate Falcon 9 Starlink mission – assigned to a different launch pad – found itself delayed from March 4th to March 11th.
A day or so after news of the CRS-20 launch delay first broke, NASA published a blog post noting that SpaceX had taken the extraordinary step of fully replacing the mission’s Falcon 9 second stage, the part of the rocket (pictured underneath Dragon in the photo above) tasked with taking payloads from the edge of space into Earth orbit (or beyond). Triggered by a faulty component in its space-optimized Merlin Vacuum engine, the fact that SpaceX chose to replace the upper stage and still only delayed CRS-20’s launch by four days suggests that its ambitious Starlink launch plans are already creating positive side effects for commercial customers.
"SpaceX identified a valve motor on the second stage engine behaving not as expected and determined the safest and most expedient path to launch is to utilize the next second stage in line that was already at the Cape and ready for flight."https://t.co/E9dokEAf0n— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) February 25, 2020
As of late, multi-day hardware-related launch delays have been rather rare for SpaceX, who has instead suffered numerous weather-related scrubs over the course of completing its Fall 2019 and Winter 2020 launch manifest. SpaceX’s February 17th Starlink-4 mission did suffer a minor second stage valve-related delay that was fixed in about 24 hours, but things have otherwise been quite smooth for Falcon 9.
Given all that goes into building and testing Falcon 9 second stages, there are very few good explanations (aside from pure luck) that would allow for a given SpaceX launch to entirely replace its assigned second stage a week before liftoff and only slip a handful of days. Nevertheless, with CRS-20, SpaceX is attempting to do exactly that.
“SpaceX identified a valve motor on the second stage engine behaving not as expected and determined the safest and most expedient path to launch is to utilize the next second stage in line that was already at the Cape and ready for flight. The new second stage has already completed the same preflight inspections with all hardware behaving as expected. The updated target launch date provides the time required to complete preflight integration and final checkouts.”
NASA.gov — February 25th, 2020
The specific lead times SpaceX’s Falcon rocket family parts require is almost totally unknown but it’s safe to say that the process of building a Falcon upper stage from scratch, performing acceptance testing in Texas, and shipping said stage to the launch pad takes months from start to finish. For SpaceX to be able to attempt to minimize CRS-20’s delays to just four days while still fully swapping out its upper stage, the company would have quite literally had to have had another Falcon stage just sitting around in Florida.
As it turns out, per NASA’s official statement, that is precisely what transpired. A separate second stage was already in Florida and “ready for flight”, giving SpaceX the luxury of selecting the safest option theoretically available. Beyond the hardware already being ready to go in Florida, the stage reassignment almost certainly also hinged upon the mission it was assigned to being somewhat nonessential – a label that SpaceX would be hard-pressed to affix to any of its customers’ launches. An internal Starlink mission, however, would be a perfect opportunity, allowing SpaceX to avoid both picking favorites and seriously impacting (aside from the ~4-day CRS-20 delay) its paying customers.
To be clear, SpaceX was thus able to swap out CRS-20’s upper stage at the last second with only a minor schedule impact almost exclusively because of it’s ambitious plans for 20-24 Starlink launches this year. If the company wasn’t pursuing a more than biweekly 2020 launch cadence, it’s much more likely that CRS-20 would have had to make do with its second stage or wait for a new one to be built, potentially delaying the launch by one or two weeks, if not longer.
In simple terms, the launch cadence SpaceX is targeting (and needs) for its Starlink constellation is already exhibiting signs of a future where its high-performance orbital-class rockets have been almost entirely commodified.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
