News
SpaceX rapidly constructing Starship’s first Florida launch pad and tower
After restarting work on the project a few months ago, SpaceX appears to have gotten back up to speed and begun to make rapid progress on the construction of Starship’s first Florida launch pad and tower.
Located at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Launch Complex 39A facilities, SpaceX has intended to construct a Starship launch site there for several years. A serious attempt was made in late 2019 but SpaceX soon abandoned the effort and redirected its energy towards Starship prototyping and a much different launch pad design. Two years later, SpaceX’s second attempt shares only a little in common with the first. Both are to be located within the eastern half of Pad 39A’s shield-like footprint, although the specific location of the tower and launch mount has been modified. If this attempt comes to fruition, Starship’s first East Coast launch facilities will still sit just a few hundred feet away from the only SpaceX pad capable of launching Crew Dragon, Cargo Dragon, or Falcon Heavy.
Beyond those two characteristics, SpaceX’s second attempt is almost entirely different.
Instead of continuing with an older launch pad design, Starship’s 39A facilities will likely be close to a direct copy of Starbase’s first orbital launch site (OLS), which SpaceX began constructing in earnest in late 2020. It’s safe to assume that some lessons have been learned from Starbase OLS construction and that some modifications will be made to the Florida pad’s design, but no obvious changes are thus far visible.
Most of the visible work SpaceX has done this year centers around the company’s KSC-based Roberts Road facilities, where it has built a major Falcon processing facility and a staging yard for Starship pad construction and broken ground on a massive East Coast Starship factory. At that staging yard, SpaceX began assembling prefabricated sections of Starship’s Pad 39A ‘launch tower’ around March 10th after tower parts began arriving at KSC sometime in February. Within two weeks, SpaceX had completed the basic structure of two tower sections. Another two more weeks after that, around April 11th, a third section had reached a similar level of completion and SpaceX had begun assembling a fourth.
Compared to SpaceX’s Starbase tower assembly, Florida Starship work appears to be proceeding at a similar pace. SpaceX began assembling the fourth Florida tower section about 30 days after starting the first, while Starbase took about 25 days to reach the same point. However, SpaceX does appear to be taking a slightly different approach for Pad 39A. On top of tower section assembly, SpaceX is constructing an extra four sets of the small concrete foundations and steel frames each tower section is assembled on, implying that Starship’s Florida launch tower could be almost entirely prefabricated before SpaceX begins to combine those sections.
That differs from Starbase, where SpaceX rarely constructed more than two or three tower sections at a time before removing and stacking each completed section and beginning to assemble the next on the same foundation and jig. However, while undeniably efficient, SpaceX workers then had to spend months outfitting the tower with plumbing, wiring, additional structure, and more. It’s likely that SpaceX has concluded that it’s better to do as much of that work as possible before the tower is assembled, in which case each Florida section may end up spending more time on the ground. Given the obvious challenges imposed by attempting a major construction project at an active, one-of-a-kind launch pad like LC-39A, it would make even more sense for SpaceX to want to complete as much work as possible before moving Starship pad hardware into the line of fire.
Nonetheless, work will still have to be done at the pad itself. In recent weeks, SpaceX has made significant progress on the foundations 39A’s Starship launch tower and mount require. The bottom half of the concrete base that each steel tower section will eventually sit on has also progressed rapidly. All told, SpaceX is will on its way to replicating Starbase’s orbital Starship launch site on the East Coast, hopefully ensuring that Starship will be able to begin orbital test flights within the next 6-12 months even if the company’s Starbase environmental review continues to be bogged down by bureaucracy.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
News
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s unsupervised robotaxi fleet quietly grew sevenfold in three weeks just before Cybercab Day arrives.
Tesla’s unsupervised Robotaxi fleet has grown far faster than the public numbers suggested, and the timing lines up with the company’s biggest autonomy showcase yet. According to data compiled by the crowdsourced Robotaxi Tracker, Tesla now has nearly 200 vehicles operating without a safety monitor across Austin, Dallas and Houston, yielding a roughly 7X increase in about three weeks.
The jump lands four days before this week’s Tesla Cybercab launch event in Austin, where the company plans to show off its purpose-built, two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in a live commercial setting for the first time. Stick with us on X and Facebook for live reporting from the event.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Tesla has spent the past year scaling Robotaxi in small, deliberate steps, first widening geofences, then extending operating hours, then quietly growing fleet size, usually with little advance notice. Ashok Elluswamy told investors on the Q2 earnings call that the program had logged more than 380,000 unsupervised miles with zero notable incidents, a safety record the company has leaned on to justify moving slowly. Critics have used the flip side of that caution, a fleet that appeared stuck around two dozen vehicles for months, as evidence that Tesla’s driverless ambitions were outrunning its actual deployment.
A fleet quietly scaling to nearly 200 vehicles right before Cybercab Day undercuts that argument without Tesla having to say anything about it directly. It also sets up the event to do double duty. Rather than simply introducing new hardware, Tesla can point to an operating base of unsupervised Model Ys already running at meaningful scale, then argue the Cybercab, which uses the same underlying Full Self-Driving stack according to earlier coverage of the fleet’s software upgrades, is a natural next steps. Tesla has separately been registering the two-seat Cybercabs with Texas regulators this week, with the count climbing from seven to 45 in a matter of days.
The two ramps, one in software-driven Model Y deployment and one in physical Cybercab registrations, are happening in parallel rather than in sequence. That suggests Tesla wants Thursday’s event to land as proof that the robotaxi business is already running at scale, not just a reveal of a new vehicle shape. Whether the unsupervised numbers hold up once Cybercabs start mixing into the same fleet is the detail worth watching once the event wraps.
Tesla is lowering the monthly price of its Cybertruck Windshield Protection Plan from $35 to $25. The new rate will apply to the first payment on or after October 1, 2026. Tesla has told subscribers that all other benefits stay the same.
The plan covers unlimited repairs for chips and minor cracks on the front windshield. It also includes one full replacement every 12 months at no extra charge. Additional replacements in the same year carry a $100 deductible. Service is performed with Tesla glass and camera calibration, which matters because Autopilot and Full Self-Driving rely on those lenses behind the windshield.
Looks like Tesla is decreasing the Cybertruck windshield protection plan price from $35 to $25
Awesome https://t.co/MRlTU1XTbf pic.twitter.com/PWkMZt1H7G
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 28, 2026
There is no long-term contract. Coverage applies only to the front glass and does not include collision, vandalism, or weather damage.
The Cybertruck’s large, complex windshield has been more expensive to replace than glass on Tesla’s cars, which is why the pickup started at a higher subscription price. The $10 monthly cut reduces the annual cost from $420 to $300. Tesla has not publicly explained the change. The timing coincides with a year of claims data after the plan was extended to the Cybertruck.
Tesla sells several related protection products as monthly subscriptions through the Tesla app. The Windshield Protection Plan is also offered on other models. Model 3 and Model Y currently cost $16 a month. Those passenger-car rates are unchanged in the latest Cybertruck notice.
The Wheel and Tire Protection Plan covers road-hazard damage such as potholes, nails, and debris. Repairs are unlimited. Each wheel or tire replacement appointment has a $25 deductible. Pricing varies by model and whether the vehicle is a Performance version. Tesla is raising some of those rates on the same October 1 date.
Reported examples include Model 3 Performance moving from $16 to $24 and Model Y Performance from $20 to $24. Cybertruck wheel-and-tire coverage has been listed at $20 a month for the standard configuration.
A separate Luxe Package bundles four years of windshield coverage, wheel-and-tire coverage, and recommended maintenance on certain new Model S, Model X, and Cyberbeast orders, although the Model S and X are now defunct.
Tesla also offers an Extended Service Agreement after the basic vehicle warranty ends. That product covers many Tesla-manufactured parts rather than glass or tires. Together, the plans give owners a menu of targeted, cancel-anytime coverage instead of relying only on auto insurance.
Elon Musk says SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
