News
SpaceX readies its California landing pad for September rocket recovery debut
Just as SpaceX successfully debuted Falcon 9 Block 5 at their California launch pad and returned drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) to rocket recovery duty after a nine-month leave, the company’s next West Coast mission is already aligning for an early-September launch. The mission, SAOCOM-1A, will feature yet another inaugural event – the first use of a West Coast landing pad less than a mile from SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad.
For the last two and a half years, SpaceX’s Florida launch sites (Pad 40 and Pad 39A) have also been privy to a unique secondary facility known as Landing Zone-1, located a few miles away from both pads inside the boundaries of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). In fact, although a number of attempts were made to recover a Falcon 9 booster aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) in 2015, the first successful Falcon 9 booster landing happened to occur at LZ-1, followed four months later by the first successful recovery by sea.
SLC-4E after a foggy launch of Iridium-7 at Vandenberg. #spacex #iridium7 pic.twitter.com/YQkXbpBooj
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) July 25, 2018
Why land on land, why land at sea?
The primary draw of an equivalent land-based pad is both simple and massive: while SpaceX’s autonomous drone ship vessels are complex, comparatively easy to damage, and extremely expensive to both operate and maintain, a concrete circle on land has relatively tiny fixed and variable costs, does not have to concern itself with volatile ocean conditions, and does not require a fleet of tugboats and service vessels to operate. Rough estimates place the cost of taking a drone ship, tugboat, and crew transport vessel hundreds of miles off the coast on missions that can last 7-14 days anywhere from $500,000 to $2 million or more, depending on how you tabulate costs. Either way, the drone ship fleet will always be more complex and more expensive than simple concrete pads on land.
One problem with land-based landing zones is that returning rockets to their launch sites is very fuel-intensive, requiring propellant margins at booster stage separation that dramatically reduce the payload that can be placed into low Earth orbit (LEO), let alone higher-energy missions to geostationary orbit. As such, without massive performance improvements, drone ships like JRTI and OCISLY will be irreplaceable for as long as Falcon 9 and Heavy are flying – SpaceX simply cannot recover rockets during the geostationary launches that comprise a huge portion of their manifest unless they have those vessels.
-
- Elon Musk walks among his recovered Falcon Heavy boosters at LZ-1 and 2. (Elon Musk)
-
- The drone ship Of Course I Still Love You spotted in Port Canaveral, FL last December. (Instagram /u/ johnabc123)
-
- West Coast drone ship Just Read The Instructions headed out to sea to catch a Block 5 booster on July 22. It succeeded. (Pauline Acalin)
This brings us to another conundrum. SpaceX’s Florida launch facilities support heavy commercial geostationary satellite launches as much as or more than any other type of payload in a given year of launches, meaning that the company’s now-doubled landing pad at LZ-1 is only used every once and awhile for Cargo Dragon launches and other miscellaneous and rare launches that leave enough margin in Falcon 9. SpaceX’s Vandenberg pad, on the other hand, is effectively bound to launching satellites into polar orbits (orbiting over Earth’s poles versus around the equator) – safety regulations prevent large rockets from launching over populated areas like the entire continental U.S., as an example for California launches.
Equatorial launches from East to West are much less efficient than their opposite, as Earth’s own rotation (West to East) provides rockets an appreciable performance boost. The point is that SpaceX’s Vandenberg launches are for fairly particular payloads, usually LEO communications satellites and imaging satellites that thrive in polar orbits, where one or a handful of satellites can observe almost anywhere on Earth over the course of a normal 24-hour. Those satellites also happen to be lightweight more often than not, meaning that many of the booster recoveries on drone ship JRTI could instead return to launch site (RTLS) for a dramatically simpler and cheaper recovery.
Enter Block 5
A West Coast LZ is even more intriguing and important with respect to the recent debut of Falcon 9 Block 5 at Vandenberg and the fact that all future launches. Even compared to SpaceX’s Florida LZ-1, the company’s Western pad is incredibly close to the launch pad. By landing less than a mile from SpaceX’s VAFB integration and refurbishment facilities (and launch pad), recovery and refurbishment operations should be more effortless than any before it.
-
- SpaceX’s yet-unused Californian Landing Zone, seen ahead of Falcon 9 Block 5’s Iridium-7 debut. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad (right) and landing zone (left) ahead of the pad’s first Falcon 9 Block 5 launch, Iridium-7. (Pauline Acalin)
While the company’s VAFB launch pad is a bit older than its Eastern cousins and requires at least 3-5 weeks between launches for repairs and refurbishment, that relaxed schedule may be unbeatable for proving out the Block 5 upgrade’s true rapid reusability, as well as its ability to far more than two orbital missions per booster lifespan. SAOCOM-1A, one of two Argentinian Earth observations scheduled for launch with SpaceX, will begin that new era for SpaceX’s Vandenberg operations, including a landing pad debut permit officially granted by the FCC in the last few weeks. The Falcon 9 booster that launches that mission is bound to have a storied future ahead of itself.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
News
Tesla discloses two Robotaxi crashes to NHTSA
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
Tesla has disclosed information on two low-speed crashes that occurred in Austin with its Robotaxi platform. These incidents occurred with teleoperators steering the vehicle, and there were no passengers in the car at the time they happened.
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
The first crash took place in July 2025, shortly after Tesla launched its nascent Robotaxi network in Austin. The ADS reportedly struggled to move forward while stopped on a street. A teleoperator assumed control, gradually accelerating and turning left toward the roadside. The vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a metal fence.
In the second incident, in January 2026, the ADS was traveling straight when the safety monitor requested navigation support. The teleoperator took over from a stop, continued forward, and collided with a temporary construction barricade at approximately 9 mph, scraping the front-left fender and tire.
Tesla Robotaxi service in Austin achieves monumental new accomplishment
Tesla has previously told lawmakers that teleoperators are authorized to pilot vehicles remotely—but only at speeds below 10 mph, as the only maneuvers they were approved to perform were repositioning in awkward areas.
“This capability enables Tesla to promptly move a vehicle that may be in a compromising position, thereby mitigating the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually recover the vehicle,” the company stated in filings earlier this year.
Before this week, Tesla redacted the NHTSA reports, but they decided to reveal all 17 Robotaxi incidents recorded since the launch in Austin last Summer. Most of the other crashes involved the Tesla being struck by other road users and were not caused by the self-driving suite itself.
There were other incidents, including two additional self-caused accidents involving the ADS clipping side mirrors on parked cars. In September 2025, one Robotaxi struck a dog that darted into the roadway (the dog escaped unharmed), while another made an unprotected left turn into a parking lot and hit a metal chain.
Although Waymo and Zoox have reported more total crashes, Tesla operates at a far smaller scale. The cautious pace reflects the company’s broader safety concerns; it has been very slow with the Robotaxi rollout to ensure the suite is ready for operation.
Last month, CEO Elon Musk acknowledged that “making sure things are completely safe” remains the primary bottleneck to expanding the network, describing the company’s approach as “very cautious.”
The unredacted filings arrive amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA recently closed a separate probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software repeatedly striking parking-lot obstacles such as bollards and chains—a problem that also prompted a recall at Waymo last year.
Tesla Robotaxi has been a widely successful program in its early days of operation, and the transparency Tesla brings here is greatly appreciated. Incidents will happen, of course, but the honesty gives customers and regulators a sense of where Tesla is in terms of developing its self-driving and fully autonomous ride-hailing suite.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
