Techfullnews

SpaceX Exceeds Launch Goals for 2023, Plans to Launch 90% of Payloads in 2024

SpaceX Exceeds Launch Goals

SpaceX has exceeded its launch goals for 2023, delivering 80% of all Earth payload mass to orbit so far this year, CEO Elon Musk said. China has delivered 10%, and the rest of the world combined has delivered the remaining 10%.

Following the company’s record-breaking 62nd successful flight of the year on Sunday, Musk revealed a few details about SpaceX’s plans for next year. The space exploration company, he said, will be responsible for delivering 90% of all payload to orbit mass for 2024. And once SpaceX’s bold Starship program gets up and running, that number will exceed 99%, Musk said.

“These magnitudes are madness to consider, but necessary to make consciousness multiplanetary,” Musk said in a post on his social media platform, X.

Musk’s latest Starship predictions come a little more than a week after the rocket’s booster performed a “static fire” test, igniting its engines for six seconds. The booster fired 29 of its 33 engines during its first static fire on August 6; all 33 engines fired up during this second test on August 25.

After the successful static fire, Musk teased the highly anticipated second launch of Starship, saying: “Getting ready for the next Starship flight.”

It’s still unclear exactly when SpaceX plans to try to fly Starship again. The rocket’s first flight occurred on April 20 of this year and ended in a fiery explosion above the Gulf of Mexico. Musk said in June that SpaceX has made more than 1,000 design changes to Starship following the destruction of the first rocket. He said at the time that both the pad and rocket should be ready for a secondary launch in about six weeks.

These optimistic plans come in the wake of a lawsuit a coalition of environmental groups brought against the Federal Aviation Administration for allowing SpaceX to launch Starship without properly addressing the impact on the surrounding area. It remains unclear whether this suit will impact Starship’s timeline.

“The FAA’s failure to fully consider the impacts of the Starship Launch Program,” the suit reads, “was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act.”

This increase in rocket flights spearheaded by Musk and SpaceX represents an additional environmental threat in the form of the injection of soot into the upper layers of the atmosphere, something that could warm those layers and weaken the protection of the ozone layer, contributing to climate change.

At around the same time that SpaceX was launching its 62nd rocket of the year, delivering an additional 21 Starlink satellites into orbit, the company’s Dragon capsule safely delivered four astronauts back to Earth.

The astronauts, making up NASA and SpaceX’s Crew-6 mission, were returning after a six-month stay aboard the international space station. The Dragon capsule — whose exterior heated up to around 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit — was flying at more than 17,000 miles per hour before deploying a series of parachutes and landing in the ocean off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida.

In addition to the environmental concerns, there are also safety concerns associated with SpaceX’s ambitious launch plans. The company has had a number of high-profile rocket failures in recent years, including the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket in 2016 that killed a SpaceX employee.

Despite the risks, Musk has said that he is committed to making SpaceX the leading provider of launch services in the world. He has also said that he believes that Starship will eventually be used to transport humans to Mars.

Only time will tell whether Musk’s ambitious plans will be realized. But one thing is for sure: SpaceX is playing a major role in the future of space exploration.

ADVERTISEMENT
RECOMMENDED
NEXT UP

In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled that Apple can no longer impose fees on purchases made outside its App Store or restrict developers from directing users to alternative payment methods. The ruling, effective immediately, marks a significant victory for Epic Games in its ongoing legal battle against Apple.

Apple has announced plans to appeal the decision, but the court’s order is a clear rebuke of the tech giant’s previous attempts to circumvent antitrust regulations.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple “willfully” defied her 2021 injunction, which required the company to allow developers to link to external payment options. In her latest ruling, she stated:

“That [Apple] thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation.”

The judge also referred the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for potential criminal contempt proceedings, signaling the severity of Apple’s non-compliance.

What Apple Can No Longer Do:

  1. Charge commissions on purchases made outside of apps.
  2. Restrict how developers design, format, or place links to external payment options.
  3. Block or limit buttons, calls to action, or other methods that direct users to alternative payment systems.
  4. Interfere with users leaving an app—except for a neutral warning about third-party transactions.

Apple’s Response & Industry Reactions

Apple’s Senior Director of Corporate Communications, Olivia Dalton, stated:

“We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.”

Meanwhile, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney announced that Fortnite will return to the U.S. App Store next week. He also extended a “peace proposal” to Apple:

“If Apple extends the court’s friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we’ll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic.”

Spotify, another vocal critic of Apple’s policies, hailed the ruling as:

“A victory for developers everywhere.”

Why This Ruling Matters

For years, Apple has enforced a 30% commission on in-app purchases, a policy that sparked backlash from developers and regulators. Even after the 2021 ruling, Apple introduced a 27% fee on external transactions—a move the court deemed an attempt to maintain its revenue stream unlawfully.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers revealed internal tensions at Apple, noting that App Store chief Phil Schiller advocated for compliance, while CEO Tim Cook and CFO Luca Maestri chose defiance.

What’s Next?

  • Apple’s appeal could prolong the legal battle, but the immediate ruling forces significant changes.
  • Developers gain more freedom to steer users toward cheaper payment alternatives.
  • Consumers may benefit from lower prices if developers pass on the savings from avoiding Apple’s fees.

This case sets a major precedent in the fight against Big Tech’s monopolistic practices, reinforcing the need for fair competition in digital marketplaces.

new Senate investigation has found that Elon Musk’s empire of companies—including Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company, and xAI—may avoid over $2.37 billion in potential legal liabilities due to his unprecedented influence over U.S. government policy.

The report, compiled by Democratic staff on the Senate Homeland Security’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), highlights how Musk’s close ties with former President Donald Trump and his role in shaping the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have shielded his businesses from regulatory scrutiny.

Key Findings: How Musk’s Influence Shields His Companies

1. Estimated $2.37 Billion in Avoided Legal Exposure

The report identifies 65 “actual or potential” legal actions across 11 federal agencies that Musk’s companies faced as of Trump’s inauguration. Of these, 40 cases had quantifiable financial risks, including:

  • Tesla: Up to $1.19 billion in liabilities for misleading claims about self-driving capabilities.
  • Neuralink$281 million in potential penalties for understating risks in brain-implant trials.
  • SpaceX$630,000+ in fines for allegedly skirting rocket launch regulations.

2. Regulatory Agencies Weakened Under DOGE

Many agencies overseeing Musk’s companies—such as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)—have faced budget cuts and reduced enforcement power under DOGE’s restructuring.

3. Alleged Interference in Investigations

The report cites instances where legal actions against Musk’s companies were allegedly stalled or dismissed, including:

  • The abrupt resignation of an FAA official after clashing with SpaceX.
  • Delayed investigations into Tesla’s Autopilot safety concerns.
  • Reduced scrutiny of Neuralink’s medical trial disclosures.

“Mr. Musk’s position may allow him to evade oversight, derail investigations, and make litigation disappear whenever he so chooses—on his terms and at his command.”
— Senate PSI Report

Senate Democrats Demand Transparency

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the subcommittee’s ranking member, has sent letters to all five Musk-led companies, demanding:

  • Full disclosure of ongoing federal investigations.
  • Details on safeguards preventing government influence over legal matters.
  • Preservation of communications between Musk’s firms and federal officials.

The companies have until May 11th to respond. However, subpoena power rests with the Republican majority, meaning further action depends on bipartisan support.

Why the $2.37 Billion Figure May Be an Underestimate

The report warns that the true financial benefit to Musk could be far higher because:
✔ 25 additional legal actions couldn’t be quantified.
✔ Legal fees and compliance costs (potentially billions more) may be avoided.
✔ New government contracts (like SpaceX’s NASA deals) could bring additional revenue.
✔ Competitive intelligence advantages from insider access.

The Bigger Concern: Unseen Consequences

The most troubling implication? “The cases never filed, investigations quietly neglected, and potential witnesses silenced will be harder—if not impossible—to detect.”

What This Means for Corporate Accountability

This report raises critical questions about:
🔹 Corporate influence over regulatory bodies
🔹 The erosion of checks and balances in government oversight
🔹 Potential conflicts of interest when tech moguls shape policy affecting their own industries

Will Congress Take Action?

  • If Republicans block further investigation, Musk’s companies may continue operating with reduced oversight.
  • If Democrats gain more leverage, expect hearings, subpoenas, and stricter enforcement.

Final Thoughts: A Test for Democracy or Just Business as Usual?

Elon Musk’s case is a litmus test for corporate power in government. While some argue his disruptive innovations deserve flexibility, others warn that no billionaire should be above the law.

What do you think?
✅ Should Musk’s companies face stricter oversight?
✅ Is this a dangerous precedent, or just smart business?

Let us know in the comments!

ADVERTISEMENT
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Get notified about new articles