SpaceX
SpaceX preps for Cargo Dragon, Falcon Heavy launches despite setbacks
Despite suffering the loss of the first Falcon Heavy Block 5 center core and a catastrophic failure of the first flight-proven Crew Dragon spacecraft in nearly the same week, SpaceX’s core operations continue as usual to prepare for multiple launches in the coming months.
The echoes of the past week’s failures and ‘anomalies’ will undoubtedly ring for months to come but SpaceX now finds itself in a unique situation. Despite the imminent start of a major failure investigation, it appears unlikely – at least for the time being – that it will impact the majority of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches planned for the rest of 2019. Currently on the Q2 2019 manifest are Cargo Dragon’s 17th operational mission (CRS-17), the first operational Starlink launch, Spacecom’s Amos-17 satellite, the Canadian Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM), and Falcon Heavy’s third launch (STP-2).
Cargo Dragon – CRS-17
Following an April 20th explosion that destroyed Crew Dragon C201, SpaceX’s next launch – Cargo Dragon CRS-17 – has likely just become the most important in the near-term. Although Crew Dragon shares almost nothing directly in common with Cargo Dragon, both spacecraft still do come from the same lineage, relying on the same propellant and Draco maneuvering thrusters, as well as similar plumbing (excluding SuperDraco pods) and many of the same engineers and technicians.
On the other hand, Cargo Dragon has never suffered a catastrophic anomaly on the ground or in flight, although SpaceX has dealt with a fair share of less serious issues throughout the spacecraft’s operational life. Further, following the August 2017 launch of CRS-12, every CRS mission has launched with a flight-proven Cargo Dragon spacecraft. In fact, it’s quite likely that the CRS-12 Cargo Dragon capsule is the same spacecraft that has been refurbished for CRS-17, as it is currently the only flightworthy capsule to have only flown one orbital resupply mission.
It’s unclear which Falcon 9 booster has been assigned to CRS-17. NASA’s agreement with SpaceX for flight-proven boosters has been predicated on keeping those boosters ‘in-family’, so to speak, meaning that NASA will only accept flight-proven boosters if they have only flown NASA missions. The only booster that currently fits that bill is B1051, previously flown during Crew Dragon’s orbital launch debut on March 2nd, but B1051 has reportedly been assigned to SpaceX’s second Vandenberg launch of 2019 at the customer’s request. CRS-17 will thus likely launch on a new Falcon 9 booster (B1056). There is a chance that Crew Dragon’s catastrophic failure has severely contaminated the Landing Zone area with unburnt MMH and NTO, both of which are extraordinarily toxic to humans in even the tiniest of quantities.
Some launch-related questions may be answered in a NASA media briefing planned for 11am EDT, April 22nd. CRS-17 is scheduled to launch no earlier than 4:22 am EDT (08:22 UTC), April 30th.
Starlink, Falcon Heavy, and more
Meanwhile, the Falcon upper/second stage (S2) spotted in the tweet at the top of the article serves as evidence of preparations for launches planned in May/June, as do a duo of first stage boosters spied during their own Cape Canaveral arrivals. All that’s missing to round out a busy week of SpaceX transportation is the appearance of one or several payload fairings, although CEO Elon Musk says that the company will try to reuse Falcon Heavy Flight 2’s fairing on the first Starlink launch.
Said Starlink launch – unofficially labeled Starlink-1 – is currently scheduled for liftoff no earlier than mid-May, likely making it the SpaceX mission that will follow CRS-17. The most likely Falcon 9 S1 candidate is the thrice-flown Block 5 booster B1046, a move that would retire risk otherwise transmitted to customers. SpaceX has now flown two separate Falcon 9 boosters (B1046 and B1048) three times without major issue, meaning that the fourth flight of the same booster (and beyond) will be new territory for reuse at some level.
Beyond Starlink-1, SpaceX has the communications satellite Amos-17 and Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM), both of which are understood to be targeting launch no earlier than (NET) early June. Finally, Falcon Heavy Flight 3 – carrying the US Air Force’s STP-2 mission – is scheduled to launch NET June 22nd, although some additional delays are probable.
From a business-as-usual perspective, the fact that Crew Dragon C201 failed during intentional testing on the ground means that it will likely be SpaceX’s least commercially disruptive failure yet. This could change for any number of reasons, depending on the conclusions drawn by the joint NASA-SpaceX investigation soon to begin, and it’s far too early to draw far-reaching conclusions. Chances are good that the impact to non-Crew Dragon launches will be minimal but only time will tell as SpaceX begins to quite literally pick up the pieces and start a deep-dive analysis of all data gathered from Saturday’s failure.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
Elon Musk
Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network.
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.
Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.
A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.
The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted.
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
Elon Musk clarifies Tesla Cybertruck ’10 day’ comment, fans respond
