Connect with us
SpaceX Starship V3 flight 12 SpaceX Starship V3 flight 12

Elon Musk

Elon Musk called it Epic: The full story of SpaceX’s Starship Flight 12

Starship V3 reached space, survived reentry, and proved it can fly with engines out.

Published

on

After two scrubbed attempts, SpaceX launched Starship V3 on Friday, May 22 from the brand new Pad 2 at Starbase, Texas, completing the most technically complex test flight the program has attempted and moving the bar in ways that matter for everything from commercial satellites to the first human Moon landing since 1972.

The Super Heavy booster lost an engine early during ascent and several more failed during its boostback burn, sending the stage into an off-nominal descent that ended in a hard landing in the Gulf of Mexico. SpaceX had planned a soft splashdown rather than a tower catch on this first V3 flight, so losing the booster was expected to be acceptable within the test parameters.

Ship 39 told a different story. The Starship upper stage reached its planned sub-orbital trajectory despite losing one of its vacuum Raptor engines, with the remaining engines compensating for the loss and keeping the vehicle on course. The spacecraft then survived atmospheric reentry, completed its belly-flip maneuver, and made a controlled upright splashdown in the Indian Ocean west of Australia.


The payload test is where Flight 12 separated itself from every previous Starship mission. SpaceX deployed 22 objects including 20 Starlink simulator satellites sized like next-generation V3 Starlink units, plus two specially modified satellites equipped with cameras that scanned Starship’s heat shield from orbit and transmitted imagery back to operators.

The broader significance of what was tested on Friday goes well beyond one mission. Every future Starship deployment, whether it is a batch of operational Starlink V3 satellites, cargo bound for the Moon, or eventually crew headed to Mars, depends on SpaceX being able to inspect and certify the heat shield quickly between flights. The camera-equipped satellites deployed on Flight 12 are the first step toward making that inspection process automated and data-driven rather than manual and time-consuming. If SpaceX can scan the heat shield from orbit after every reentry and flag damaged or missing tiles before the vehicle even lands, it fundamentally changes the turnaround time between flights. For a program that needs to refuel Starship in orbit using ten or more tanker launches before a single Moon mission can depart, launch cadence is everything. Friday’s payload test can be seen as building the maintenance infrastructure for rapid reusability.

Advertisement
-

Elon Musk took to X, following the successful tests, and noting: “Congratulations @SpaceX team on an epic first Starship V3 launch and landing!” “You scored a goal for humanity.”

The stakes behind that goal are concrete. NASA has selected Starship as the Human Landing System for Artemis IV, targeting a crewed Moon landing in 2028, and SpaceX has yet to demonstrate a full orbital flight, in-orbit refueling, or docking with an Orion capsule. Flight 12 proved V3 can fly, survive reentry, and deploy payloads under engine-out conditions. That is the foundation everything else has to be built on, and with a SpaceX IPO targeting June 2026, the timing of that proof of concept could not have been more useful.

Gene has been obsessed with cars since before he could legally sit in the front seat. Writer, researcher, unofficial CS support, accountant, native suit guy when needed, and overall stick poker. He approaches every story the way he approaches a road trip: with too much enthusiasm, not enough planning, and a surprisingly good outcome. gene@teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla Cybercabs narrowly miss deadly Amazon cargo plane crash

An Amazon cargo plane crash near Miami’s airport stopped feet from dozens of Tesla Cybercabs.

Published

on

By

Photorealistic depiction of the Amazon Prime plane crash in Miami on Sep 3, 2026 near a fleet of Tesla Cybercab
Photorealistic depiction of the Amazon Prime plane crash in Miami on Sep 3, 2026 near a fleet of Tesla Cybercab

An Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo jet overran the runway at Miami International Airport on Sunday afternoon, killing five people and injuring five more. The jet, operated by North Carolina based carrier 21 Air as Flight 7598, touched down around 2 p.m. after arriving from San Juan, Puerto Rico, then crossed the airport perimeter, plowed across NW 67th Avenue and struck multiple vehicles before catching fire, according to the Associated Press.

Photos and video from the scene show the aircraft’s nose stopped within meters of a fenced staging lot holding dozens of gold painted Tesla Cybercabs, the steering wheel free robotaxi Tesla began putting on public roads in Austin last week. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue has confirmed the plane struck “multiple vehicles” but has not said whether any Cybercabs were among them, and neither Tesla nor airport officials have addressed the fleet directly.

The Cybercabs had not yet entered commercial service in Miami. Tesla’s existing Robotaxi operation there runs on modified Model Y vehicles and has been unsupervised since Ashok Elluswamy confirmed the detail on X in July.


Elon Musk offered the briefest of reactions. Replying to a Zero Hedge post about the Cybercabs sitting so close to the wreckage, he wrote a single word: “Weird.” He has not commented further, and Tesla has not issued a statement.

The timing puts Tesla’s newest vehicle near an unrelated but highly visible tragedy just days after its Austin debut, a launch that had already drawn scrutiny from federal regulators. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an audit how Tesla certified the Cybercab as compliant with federal vehicle safety standards, a process Teslarati covered after the vehicle’s September 3 launch event. That inquiry concerns the car’s lack of a steering wheel and pedals, not the Miami crash.

Advertisement
-

Investigators from the FAA and NTSB are focused on the plane, not the parking lot beside it. Flight data reviewed by outlets including Simple Flying show the 767 touched down around 170 knots, well above the 135 to 140 knot range typical for the aircraft, though investigators have not determined a cause. Amazon said it is working with authorities and that its priority is the safety of everyone affected.

Whether any Cybercabs were damaged, and what Tesla plans for the fleet parked near one of the country’s busiest airports, remain open questions.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

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.”

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s Grok can basically control anything in your Tesla now

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s 2026 Summer Update turns Grok from a talking companion into a true in-car controller, with considerably expanded capabilities. Where the assistant once answered questions and handled navigation, it can now operate hardware and software through ordinary speech, including several requests at the same time.

Grok has become incredibly robust over the past few quarters, and this new ability that Tesla has included with its Summer Update is perhaps the clearest sign of just how capable it has become.

You can issue many commands to Grok at once, and each will be taken care of: anything from headlight control to climate adjustments to mirror folding can now all be taken care of with a simple sentence spoken toward Grok:

Here’s another example I used in my Model Y:

Tesla’s official Release Notes list the core powers of Grok’s new capabilities: Grok can place phone calls from a paired phone, search a streaming service and queue music, adjust climate, and search the Controls panel. Drivers can also ask it questions about the vehicle or the latest features included in a recent software update.

It can also take care of driving settings, dynamics, and other relevant preferences that deal with how the car operates and handles.

Advertisement
-

Tesla Summer Update begins rolling out: a look at the new features

It’s also more of a use case than a novelty feature. Grok was great for learning about something that was being pondered while Full Self-Driving was taking care of the major automotive responsibilities, but it did have some useful functionality when it came to navigation.

Another less-noted improvement is the swift transition that Grok has from thinking of its answer to giving you one. In the past, it would take a few seconds for Grok to truly come up with a valuable response. It now seems that it is improving, at least slightly.

Continue Reading