News
SpaceX to attempt back-to-back Falcon Heavy launches with booster reuse in 2019
SpaceNews reports that SpaceX is planning an impressive duo of Falcon Heavy launches in the first half of 2019, the heavy lift rocket’s second and third missions. According to Nicky Fox, NASA’s heliophysics division director, SpaceX intends to recover and reuse all three Falcon Heavy first stage boosters for both launches and apparently believes that it can recover and prepare them for a second launch in as few as 60 days.
Following a highly successful February 2018 launch debut, SpaceX has targeted the launches of commercial satellite Arabsat 6A and the USAF’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) in the second half of 2018, a schedule that rapidly realigned to H1 2019. If the unofficial plan described above turns out to be true, the USAF will apparently become the first commercial customer to launch on a flight-proven Falcon Heavy.
NASA looking to launch delayed space science missions in early 2019 https://t.co/Q3wojAStr5 pic.twitter.com/YBp4lhF1bo
— SpaceNews (@SpaceNews_Inc) December 19, 2018
A Reddit user was lucky enough to spot one of SpaceX’s next-gen Falcon Heavy side boosters – coincidentally just one day after Dr. Fox’s comments – on its way East through rainy Louisiana, undeniable evidence that the heavy lift rocket’s second (and third) launches have a real chance of happening in early 2019. According to Dr. Fox, SpaceX is seriously targeting a very rapid turnaround of Falcon Heavy’s next three first stage boosters, stating (admittedly without official confirmation) that SpaceX would be reusing the boosters from Arabsat 6A’s March 2019 launch on the planned April 2019 launch of STP-2.
“[Falcon Heavy] will launch [STP-2 in April] after the successful launch of Arabsat, which is currently manifested for March. [SpaceX] will recover and reuse the boosters, so we’re kind of watching what happens with that first launch.” – Dr. Nicky Fox via SpaceNews
Whether or not this officially unconfirmed information is correct, it certainly sounds like just the thing that CEO Elon Musk might challenge SpaceX to pull off, not to mention the fact that this would place the US Air Force in a situation requiring it to become the first commercial customer to launch on a flight-proven Falcon Heavy. This would be a truly dramatic change in attitude compared to comments made in just the last week, brought up in the context of SpaceX’s planned December 18 (now Dec 22) launch of the USAF’s first next-gen GPS satellite, GPS III SV01. In official comments provided to the media, the Air Force was extremely “uncertain” about allowing SpaceX to even attempt to recover its Falcon 9 booster, let alone allowing the company to fly Air Force payloads on flight-proven rockets.
- The second Falcon Heavy booster in four weeks was spotted Eastbound in Arizona by SpaceX Facebook group member Eric Schmidt on Dec. 3. (Eric Schmidt – Facebook)
- Falcon Heavy’s two side boosters landed side-by-side after a successful launch debut. (SpaceX)
- LZ-1 and LZ-2, circa February 2018. (SpaceX)
- Falcon Heavy ahead of its inaugural launch. (SpaceX)
Admittedly, the intentions behind STP-2 differ drastically from GPS III SV01. As the name suggests, the missions falls under a program explicitly designed to test and prove out new launch vehicles in the context of fast-tracking their certification for higher-value Air Force spacecraft. Falcon 9 could almost certainly launch STP-2 in a reusable configuration, but the USAF chose Falcon Heavy – and included literal dead weight – because the military branch is very interested in the rocket’s potential utility for more serious National Security Space missions.

SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch famously featured flight-proven side boosters that performed jaw-dropping simultaneous landings at LZ-1 and LZ-2. Chances are good that Falcon Heavy Flight 2 and 3 will both feature additional attempts at simultaneous LZ booster landings. If SpaceX can find a way to launch Falcon Heavy twice in barely two months while still reusing all three first stage boosters, it’s hard to imagine a better way to demonstrate the economic and technological viability of both Falcon Heavy and Block 5’s reusability upgrades.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.



