Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s backup Dragon launch pad on track for 2023 debut

Published

on

SpaceX has begun building a backup launch pad for its Cargo and Crew Dragon spacecraft and says the facility could be ready for use as early as fall 2023.

Reuters first revealed those plans in June 2022. They arose because NASA reportedly told SpaceX it was worried that the company’s first Florida Starship launch site – colocated at the only pad currently able to launch SpaceX Dragon spacecraft – could add too much risk. In September 2022, NASA and SpaceX acknowledged plans to modify LC-40 for Dragon launches and indicated that both parties had decided to proceed.

Four months later, SpaceX and NASA have provided another press conference update. Officials confirmed that construction is already partially underway and reported that LC-40 could be ready to support its first Dragon launch less than a year from now.

Because Boeing’s comparable Starliner capsule is years behind schedule and still unqualified to launch humans, NASA has relied almost exclusively on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon to launch its astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) since 2020. Starliner should be ready to supplement Crew Dragon’s operational astronaut launches by the end of 2023 or early 2024, alleviating some of that pressure.

Advertisement

NASA, however, chose to develop two spacecraft to guarantee that one spacecraft would likely be available if the other was grounded for any reason. Adding the possibility that a giant, new, experimental rocket (Starship) could potentially halt all SpaceX Dragon launches in one fell swoop was apparently one bridge too many for the agency.

LC-40 has supported 9 launches in the last 8 weeks. (Richard Angle)

SpaceX’s answer to the problem was about as simple, elegant, and cheap as possible. The company has two operational Falcon launch pads in Florida, and it proposed to modify the second pad. SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-40 pad is located on a secure military base and has an even longer history of successful Falcon 9 launches than Pad 39A. It also appears that its layout will allow SpaceX to add a Dragon access tower without requiring major redesigns or months of downtime.

LC-40 is SpaceX’s most productive launch pad by far, and the company intends to launch up to 100 times in 2023. It’s thus crucial that the pad remains as active as possible as it’s modified – a major challenge. A combination of luck and the fact that the launch pad is already operational is the only reason that’s possible.

Modifying SpaceX’s busiest pad

In theory, SpaceX needs to do relatively little to enable Dragon launches out of LC-40. Dragon spacecraft are processed for flight at a separate facility and only head to the pad once they’re ready to be attached to a Falcon 9 rocket. The biggest modification LC-40 needs is a launch tower, but SpaceX ironically has experience building giant towers in sections – and offsite – through Starship.

LC-40’s Dragon access tower requires far less complex plumbing and should be smaller and easier to prefabricate and assemble. Regulatory documents indicate that the new tower will stand 81 meters (265 feet) tall – almost a third shorter than the 110-meter-tall tower SpaceX modified at Pad 39A for the same purpose. LC-40 will also need a swinging access arm to connect the tower to Dragon’s hatch. That arm can also be constructed offsite, further reducing the amount of downtime required.

Advertisement
The top half of the LC-40 T/E visible here is clearly connected by removable bolts, likely making the process of modifying the pad to support Dragon launches much less disruptive than it could have been. (Richard Angle)

The most disruptive modifications may involve LC-40’s transporter/erector (T/E) device, which rolls Falcon 9 out to the pad, raises it vertical, holds it down with giant clamps; and hosts a maze of plumbing that fuels, pressurizes, and powers the rocket. The top of LC-40’s T/E is fitted with a brace designed to support Falcon payload fairings. In comparison, 39A’s T/E was designed with swappable ‘heads’ that allow SpaceX to switch between Dragon and fairing configurations in a matter of days. The top of LC-40’s T/E also appears to be somewhat removable, but SpaceX may still have to halt launches for a few weeks to get the T/E up to spec and modified for Dragon.

SpaceX says that LC-40 will be ready to support its first Dragon launch as early as fall (Q4) 2023. Its first Dragon mission will carry cargo to the ISS, meaning that the tower, arm, and pad will not need to be immediately human-rated. In theory, SpaceX could even launch Cargo Dragon 2 from LC-40 without a tower or arm, as the only purpose of the tower during uncrewed missions is to load volatile cargo at the last possible second. SpaceX could even revert to a practice that dates back to its original Dragon 1 spacecraft and devise a method to late-load cargo while Falcon 9 and Dragon are still horizontal.

Starship is nine times as heavy and almost twice as tall as Falcon 9. (SpaceX)

The tower and access arm are only essential for Crew Dragon launches, during which astronauts must board the spacecraft a few hours before liftoff. More importantly, the same arm and tower would be used to escape Dragon and Falcon 9 in case of a minor emergency. NASA requires an escape (egress) system to human-rate a launch pad and rocket. SpaceX met that requirement at Pad 39A with a “slidewire basket” system that carries astronauts to a concrete bunker several hundred feet away from the rocket. Before LC-40 can be human-rated, SpaceX will likely need to build the same basket-and-bunker system or come up with a viable alternative.

Once complete, SpaceX will have two pads capable of supporting all Crew and Cargo Dragon launches. With that redundancy in place, NASA should be far more open to regular launches of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket out of Pad 39A. Access to multiple pads will likely be essential for Starship to complete NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) contracts, which will culminate in the giant rocket sending humans back to the Moon for the first (and second) time in half a century in the mid-to-late-2020s.

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

The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead

The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.

Published

on

By

The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.

On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.

Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption

Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.

The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.

The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.

The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

Published

on

elon musk
Ministério Das Comunicações, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.

The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.

The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.

Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package

The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”

The New York Post initially reported the story.

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”

The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.

McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.

The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.

Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.

After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.

Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.

The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.

Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.

A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybercab spotted next to Model Y shows size comparison

The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.

Published

on

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | X

The Tesla Cybercab and Tesla Model Y are perhaps two of the company’s most-discussed vehicles, and although they are geared toward different things, a recent image of the two shows a side-by-side size comparison and how they stack up dimensionally.

The Model Y is Tesla’s most-popular vehicle and has been atop the world’s best-selling rankings for the last three years. The Cybercab, while yet to be released, could potentially surpass the Model Y due to its planned accessible price, potential for passive income for owners, and focus on autonomy.

Geared as a ride-sharing vehicle, it only has two seats. However, the car will be responsible for hauling two people around to various destinations completely autonomously. How they differ in terms of size is striking.

Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature

In a new aerial image shared by drone operator and Gigafactory Texas observer Joe Tegtmeyer, the two vehicles were seen side by side, offering perhaps the first clear look at how they differ in size.

Dimensionally, the differences are striking. The Model Y stretches roughly 188 inches long, 75.6 inches wide, excluding its mirrors, and stands 64 inches tall on a 113.8-inch wheelbase. The Cybercab measures approximately 175 inches in length, about a foot shorter, and just 63 inches wide.

That narrower stance gives the Cybercab a dramatically more compact silhouette, making it easier to maneuver in tight urban environments and park in standard spaces that would feel cramped for the Model Y. Height is also lower on the Cybercab, contributing to its sleek, coupe-like profile versus the Model Y’s taller crossover shape.

Visually, the contrast is unmistakable. The Model Y presents as a family-friendly SUV with conventional doors, a prominent hood, and a spacious glass roof.

The Cybercab eliminates the steering wheel and pedals entirely, creating a clean, futuristic cabin that feels more lounge than cockpit.

Its doors open in a distinctive, wide-swinging motion, and the body features smoother, more aerodynamic lines optimized for autonomy. Parked beside a Model Y, the Cybercab appears almost toy-like in width and length, yet its low-slung stance and minimalist design emphasize agility over bulk.

Cargo capacity tells another part of the story. The Model Y offers generous real-world utility: 4.1 cubic feet in the front trunk and 30.2 cubic feet behind the rear seats, expanding to 72 cubic feet with the second row folded flat.

It comfortably swallows groceries, luggage, or sports equipment for five passengers. The Cybercab, designed for two riders, trades that volume for targeted efficiency.

It features a rear hatch with enough space for two carry-on suitcases and personal items, plenty for the typical robotaxi trip, while maintaining impressive legroom and headroom for its occupants.

In short, the Model Y prioritizes versatility and family hauling with its larger footprint and abundant storage. The Cybercab sacrifices size for simplicity, cost, and urban nimbleness.

At roughly 12 inches shorter and 12 inches narrower, it embodies Tesla’s vision for scalable, affordable autonomy: smaller on the outside, smarter inside, and ready to redefine how we move through cities.

The Cybercab and Model Y both will contribute to Tesla’s fully autonomous future. However, the size comparison gives a good look into how the vehicles are the same, and how they differ, and what riders should anticipate as the Cybercab enters production in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading