News
SpaceX’s youngest Falcon 9 booster returns to port after second launch
SpaceX’s youngest flight-proven Falcon 9 booster has returned to port after its second successful launch in ten weeks, preceded by the shrapnel of a destroyed payload fairing two days prior.
On June 30th, Falcon 9 B1060 lifted off for the first time, ultimately supporting SpaceX’s first operational US military satellite launch and completing the first successful booster landing after such a mission. Originally scheduled as early as August 29th, the same booster supported Starlink-11 on September 3rd, just 64 days after launching the US military’s GPS III SV03 satellite. In doing so, B1060 became the third Falcon 9 booster ever to launch twice in less than 70 days – all three instances of which occurred this year.
On the fairing recovery front, SpaceX’s Starlink-11 mission was not not nearly as lucky. Recovery ships GO Ms. Tree and GO Ms. Chief returned to Port Canaveral about 48 hours prior the Falcon 9 booster they launched on – but in a pile of jagged shards rather than two intact halves.
While SpaceX will have to continue chasing the ever-illusive double-fairing-catch it first tasted on July 20th, any recovery – even if just fragments – should still produce valuable data that can inform future recovery attempts and help prevent a similar fate from befalling future fairings. Outcome aside, the recovery also made for a spectacular port return for the (mostly) emptyhanded ships.
The success of Falcon 9 booster B1060’s second launch and ocean landing in 64 days is unequivocal, however. To support a combined commercial and Starlink launch cadence as ambitious as SpaceX’s in 2020, a heavy reliance on booster reuse – particularly with a focus on speed – was going to be a necessity. As a result of the unplanned loss of four Falcon Block 5 boosters between December 2018 and March 2020, SpaceX’s reuse-oriented decision to slow first stage production saw the company’s fleet of flightworthy boosters rapidly shrink.
Thankfully, Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 astronaut launch debut and the aforementioned GPS III SV03 mission introduced two new boosters – B1058 and B1060 – into circulation, resulting in a booster flight likely just large enough to support the lower bound of SpaceX’s 2020 launch ambitions. In late 2019 and early 2020, SpaceX executives revealed plans for anywhere from 24 to 36 launches this year – roughly two-thirds of which would be internal Starlink missions.
As the first Falcon 9 booster to be permitted to land after an operational National Security Space Launch (NSSL), B1060 would have been the perfect choice to support the first booster reuse during a US Air Force or National Reconnaissance Office launch. Much like NASA’s first launch on a flight-proven Falcon 9, though, that pathfinder qualification process would have likely necessitated 6+ months of inspections, reviews, and repairs. If not the first NSSL-sponsored reuse, B1060 would have also been a prime booster option for a more conservative customer or a high-value mission later this year or early next.
Instead, barely two months after its launch debut, SpaceX assigned B1060 to launch the 12th batch of Starlink satellites, pushing the internet constellation over the 700-satellite mark. In simple terms, the move implies that SpaceX is pushing as hard as ever to launch as many times as possible this year. As of now, SpaceX has launched 16 times in a bit more than eight months, averaging almost exactly two launches per month. If SpaceX continues that pace, it will beat its current annual record of 21 launches with ~24. If the company sustains the pace its kept over the last ~90 days, it could complete as many as 28 launches this year.
SpaceX’s September manifest certainly leans towards the latter option. Aside from two more Starlink missions scheduled in mid and late September, Falcon 9 booster B1062 is scheduled to debut with another GPS III satellite launch for the US military. Another five commercial missions have feasible launch targets in the fourth quarter, while it’s safe to assume that SpaceX will continue to target at least two Starlink launches per month for the indefinite future. Altogether, SpaceX has at least 15 more missions that will likely be ready to launch before the end of the year – plenty to sate Falcon 9’s ever-growing thirst.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
