Connect with us

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 launch in ten weeks. (Richard Angle)

Published

on

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.

SpaceX’s youngest flight-proven Falcon 9 booster has returned to port after its second launch in ten weeks. (Richard Angle)

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.

A less than triumphant – but still spectacular – return. (Richard Angle)

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.

Advertisement
(Richard Angle)
(Richard Angle)
(Richard Angle)
(Richard Angle)

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.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke

Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.

Published

on

By

SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.

Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.

SpaceX comes with a slew of changes for Starship Flight 13

 

The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.

Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.

SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.

Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.

Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.

APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.

The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.

The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.

Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

on

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.

The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.

Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:

“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”

The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:

“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”

Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.

Continue Reading