Full List of SpaceX Launches in May 2025
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
SpaceX is continuing its busy flight schedule for 2025, with four confirmed launches taking place in May.
The leading U.S. space company is running three launches to support the Starlink satellite system, and one manned flight to the International Space Station, which will carry four astronauts.
Why It Matters
SpaceX is the biggest contributor to CEO Elon Musk's net worth, and its continued success has been key to U.S space operations. When the shuttle that was meant to return astronauts Sunita Williams and Barry Wilmore suffered technical difficulties that left them stranded on the ISS for several months, it was a SpaceX flight that returned them home.
May 1- Starlink Group 6-75
The first SpaceX launch in May will happen at 10 a.m. ET. A Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket, one of the most common models used by SpaceX currently, will carry Starlink group 6-75. It will launch from Cape Canaveral in Florida, a launch site that has been used by NASA since the 1950s.
May 1 - Starlink Group 15-3
The second May launch will also take place on the first day of the month, taking off from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The rocket, which is also a Falcon 9 Block 5, will launch Starlink group 15-3 at 3 p.m. ET.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft launches from the Launch Complex 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center on March 14, 2025 in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft launches from the Launch Complex 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center on March 14, 2025 in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Getty Images
May 11 - Small Explorers Program
The third confirmed SpaceX flight in May is part of a NASA project that includes multiple partners. The rocket will launch from Vandenberg, as part of NASA's Tandem Reconnection and Cusp Electrodynamics Reconnaissance Satellites (TRACERS) mission. This consists two identical satellites that are to orbit Earth in order to study the interactions between the sun and the Earth's magnetic fields.
May 29 - Axiom Mission 4
The final SpaceX flight in May to be confirmed so far is the most important, as it is the only manned mission of the four. The Crew Dragon 2 will carry four astronauts to the International Space Station on May 29, launching at 1 p.m. ET.
The flight, named Axiom Mission 4, will take 14 days, and is being operated in partnership with Axiom Space, another U.S. private space company. The flight will carry veteran astronaut Peggy Whitson, as well as Shubhanshu Shukla, who will become the first member of India's astronaut corps to enter space. The launch is a fully private endeavor.
Unconfirmed Flights
According to the Next Spaceflight website, there are four other flights that are included in SpaceX's schedule for May but have not been allocated specific launch dates or times.
Do you have a story we should be covering? Do you have any questions about this article? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk urged businesses to ditch Delaware. Nevada saw an opportunity.
Elon Musk urged businesses to leave Delaware after a 2024 clash with its Court of Chancery. Other states, like Nevada, are eager to attract those corporations. Clark County, home to Las Vegas, is building an innovation district focused on tech. Elon Musk has made his feelings about the state of Delaware clear. "Companies should get the hell out of Delaware," Musk wrote last August on X. Although Delaware's Secretary of State told Business Insider its role as the "corporate capital of the world" is not under threat, states like Wyoming, Texas, and Florida — and especially Nevada — have emerged as popular alternatives. Musk's unhappiness with Delaware began in 2024 after a judge for the state's Court of Chancery denied his multi-billion-dollar pay package. In response, Musk attacked the court on X and advised others to avoid incorporating in Delaware. The billionaire has since moved Tesla and SpaceX to Texas. Musk wasn't the only business leader ready to ditch Delaware, as it turns out. VC firm Andreessen Horowitz announced its departure from the state in July, saying recent rulings in the Court of Chancery undermined its "reputation for unbiased expertise." Roblox, Dropbox, and Trump Media have also left Delaware. Delaware is considered a premier state for businesses to incorporate, in part, because of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The business-friendly statute is the foundation of its corporate law. While there are various reasons a business might incorporate outside Delaware, Musk and companies like Andreessen Horowitz said they are seeking a more favorable legal landscape. Nevada sees an opening Some of the companies that have left Delaware have chosen Nevada as their new corporate home. Andreessen Horowitz is one. The company said in its blog post that Nevada law provided less "legal uncertainty" than Delaware. Bill Ackman, the billionaire CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, said in February that his firm would also move from Delaware to Nevada. "Top law firms are recommending Nevada and Texas over Delaware," Ackman posted to X at the time. Nevada isn't just seeking companies to incorporate there, however, it also wants to attract their offices and workers. "What it's about is making sure that we're not just getting those businesses to incorporate on paper, but we also want their physical assets here," Clark County Commissioner Michael Naft told Business Insider. Clark County is home to Las Vegas. Len Jessup, a general partner with Desert Forge Ventures, which is based in Las Vegas and invests in early-stage companies, told Business Insider that he's seen more corporations choose Nevada as a home. "We've seen founders moving here — a lot of them from California because it's adjacent — but they're coming from all over," Jessup said. They're being drawn to Nevada for a variety of reasons, including no state income tax on individuals, no capital gains tax, and what Jessup described as lighter regulations. While Nevada doesn't have an individual income tax, it does enforce a commerce tax on businesses earning more than $4 million in gross revenue. Lindsey Mignano, a founding partner of SSM Law PC who represents emerging tech companies, said the different tax structures "may make less of a difference" in the early stage because "revenue is not yet high, but at the later stages of a company's lifecycle, this can absolutely add up." Clark County is hoping to draw more companies to the region by developing what it's calling an "innovation district." "It has been something that we've been really methodical about. We've gotten stakeholders together, but at the end of the day, Clark County's innovation district is really about lifting up what's happening here organically and using those assets to attract more like-minded businesses and individuals to be part of that space," Naft said. For Jessup, getting companies to incorporate in Nevada is a way to expand the state's economy, which mostly relies on its hospitality and tourism industries. "My goal is, 10 years down the road, I want to have helped to create companies in tech and biotech — so, outside of gaming, hospitality, sports, and entertainment — that add to the ecosystem and help to diversify the economy," Jessup said. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reported that the number of visitors declined 11.3% this June compared to the same time last year. "The state still does these cycles of boom and bust. I'd like to see us add more companies locally, like Switch's data center company, that are a little bit more recession-resistant," Jessup said, referring to the AI, cloud, and data center company. Naft said officials are still determining details about the Clark County innovation district, but are hopeful it could help solidify it's foothold as a business capital. "We want to make sure that people understand that we are open to new ideas," he said. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thinking of Buying Tesla Stock? Here Are 2 Red Flags to Watch
Key Points Tesla's heavy reliance on Elon Musk adds significant leadership risk. Increasing competition from established automakers and Chinese EV makers is pressuring Tesla's dominance. Investors need to be comfortable with Tesla's high valuation. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has long been the front runner in the electric vehicle (EV) revolution in the U.S. Its innovation, brand strength, and rapid growth have made it a favorite among investors. Yet, despite its impressive track record, there are two big risks that investors should carefully consider before buying Tesla stock today. 1. The Elon Musk factor Elon Musk's leadership is often cited as Tesla's greatest strength -- and, paradoxically, one of its most significant vulnerabilities. Musk's vision and hands-on approach have driven Tesla's technological breakthroughs and ambitious expansion. However, this heavy reliance on a single individual introduces what investors refer to as "key man risk." If Musk were to step back from daily operations or shift his focus to other projects, Tesla might face challenges in maintaining its momentum. Though Tesla's management team has grown stronger, few executives command the same vision, drive, and public attention as Musk. Recently, Musk's increasing involvement in political activities has raised concerns about potential distractions or reputational risks for Tesla. While the company has remained operationally strong, these developments underscore the uncertainty around its future leadership continuity. While Tesla's success lies not only with Musk but also with his team, which has executed well on his vision -- no one can build a trillion-dollar company alone -- there is still no clear successor (or a viable management team) . The silver lining here is that the Tesla board has become more serious about finding one in recent months, largely due to the CEO's active involvement in politics. For investors, this means that Tesla's fortunes remain closely tied to Musk's presence and decisions -- a factor that adds a layer of risk to the investment. 2. Intensifying competition Tesla might have been an early mover in the EV industry, but its dominance is no longer guaranteed. The industry landscape is rapidly evolving, with legacy automakers and new entrants accelerating their electric ambitions. Companies like Ford and General Motors are aggressively expanding their EV lineups. For instance, Ford plans to introduce a $30,000 midsize truck by 2027. That price is significantly lower than the average for an EV, and Ford is investing $5 billion in its EV production to make it happen. GM, on the other hand, is working hard on next-generation battery technologies to improve range, charging performance, and cost. Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers such as BYD are growing their international footprints, particularly in Europe, where Tesla experienced a nearly 27% sales declinein July 2025. BYD's battery technology, government support, and competitive pricing make it a formidable challenger. In addition, a host of EV start-ups are innovating in battery tech, autonomous driving, and new business models, further intensifying competition. While Tesla is not sitting still -- it is working on becoming the lowest-cost producer by cutting prices to grow sales volume and achieve economies of scale -- there is no guarantee that it can maintain its market share over time. In short, it's no longer the only player in town. What does this mean for investors? Tesla's story remains compelling: It's a pioneer with a powerful brand, innovative products, and potential optionality with some of its long shot bets (robotaxi, humanoid robots, etc). But the key man risk surrounding Musk and the escalating competitive landscape are real concerns that investors can't ignore. If Tesla continues to innovate more rapidly than its rivals, the company could sustain its growth trajectory. However, any leadership changes or slips in market position could hurt the business and its share price. While these two risks don't necessarily call for the sale of the stock, they do mean that investors should think carefully before buying the stock today. Tesla stock trades at a significant premium valuation to other carmakers. For perspective, Tesla has a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 12.9, compared to GM's 0.3. Unless you're comfortable with the risks and the high valuation, buying the stock today may not be a prudent decision. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $467,985!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $44,015!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $668,155!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Lawrence Nga has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends BYD Company and General Motors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Thinking of Buying Tesla Stock? Here Are 2 Red Flags to Watch was originally published by The Motley Fool
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
