News
High winds scrub SpaceX Starship SN9’s Monday launch attempt
Update (2:30 pm CST): SpaceX appears to have called off Monday’s Starship SN9 launch attempt due (primarily) to high winds along the flight corridor. Additional opportunities are available from 8 am to 6 pm CST (UTC-6) on Tuesday (Jan 26) and Wednesday (Jan 27).
Technically, lacking any official confirmation, there’s still a chance of a launch attempt or additional ground testing happening today but either possibility is extremely unlikely at this point.
Update: SpaceX has completed what is known as a Flight Readiness Review (FRR) and determined that Starship prototype SN9 is ready to attempt its first high-altitude launch as early as today.
All necessary aviation and maritime notices and restrictions are in place and the company has begun the process of closing a public highway and clearing the launch site of employees. Today’s (Jan 25) launch window lasts from noon to 6 pm CST (UTC-6) and Starship SN9 could likely be made ready to launch anytime after 2pm be ready to fly as early as 4 pm CST according to a loudspeaker announcement at the launch pad. Stay tuned for updates and, hopefully, an official SpaceX webcast.
All signs point to SpaceX’s second high-altitude Starship prototype preparing for a 12.5-kilometer (~40,000 ft) as early as Monday, January 25th in a bid to rectify a last-second bug that caused its predecessor to explode last month.
Known as Starship serial number 8 (SN8), the SpaceX-built prototype was the first to have its basic airframe (tank and nose sections) fully integrated, as well as the first Starship to attempt to break the 150m (~500 ft) ceiling set by Starhopper, SN5, and SN6. Break the ceiling SN8 most certainly did, performing a spectacularly successful 12.5 km launch that aced almost every single goal SpaceX had hoped to complete. Keyword almost.
After an impressive 280 seconds of uninterrupted operation of its Raptors, Starship SN8 shut down the last of those three engines, flipped onto its belly, and successful freefell ~12 kilometers back to Earth. The rocket then carried that success even further, reigniting two Raptors, performing a dramatic 120-degree flip, orienting itself vertically, and beginning to slow down for a soft landing.
Only then did Starship SN8’s performance deviate from virtual perfection. At T+6:38, a few seconds after beginning its crucial landing burn, one of Starship’s active Raptors shut down and the other effectively stopped generating thrust. The reason, CEO Elon Musk would later explain, was low head pressure in a smaller tank (‘header tank’) dedicated to supplying fuel during Starship’s wild flip and landing maneuver. It was never confirmed if the Raptor engine shutdown observed milliseconds prior to the other engine losing thrust was intentional.
Cause aside, the end result was unsurprising: without enough thrust to slow down, Starship SN8 accurately impacted the concrete landing zone but did so at high speed – likely around 50-60 m/s (100-150 mph). Given that Starhopper and Starships SN5 and SN6 had already successfully proven Starship’s ability to gently land from 150 meters on a single Raptor engine and that, prior to SN8, Starship’s bizarre belly-flop descent and 90-degree flip had been almost entirely theoretical, SpaceX deemed the launch a spectacular success.
Nothing better exemplifies that than the fact that a little over a month later, SpaceX quite literally began scrapping the most complex, completed section of a future Starship prototype (SN12) before it ever reached the assembly phase. Instead, SpaceX appears to be more focused than ever on a mysterious series of “major” upgrades Musk has said will debut on Starship SN15. Nearly all SN15 subsections have been completed and are simply waiting to be joined together, while parts of SN16 and SN17 are also starting to pile up in staging areas.
Starship SN10 is practically ready to move to the launch pad to prepare for flight as soon as SpaceX chooses to do so and Starship SN11 is likely no more than a week or two of work away from reaching same level of readiness.
Ultimately, despite a long and delay-ridden test campaign, Starship SN9 finally completed what looked like a full-duration static fire of all three of its Raptor engines – the rocket’s sixth static fire overall. On Saturday, January 23rd, SpaceXers installed SN9’s flight termination system (FTS) – a system of explosives designed to destroy Starship if it flies too far off course. For Starship, FTS installation all but guarantees that a launch attempt is a matter of days away. Fresh county roadblocks, Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) granted by the FAA, and Coast Guard a safety notice further imply that SN9 will attempt to launch as early as Monday morning, January 25th, with backup opportunities on Tuesday and Wednesday.
With any luck, like SN8’s high-altitude debut, SpaceX hopefully livestream Starship SN9’s own attempt at the same feat. Stay tuned for more details as they come.
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.
SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
