News
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Heavy manifest grows lopsided as launches align for Q4
For a variety of reasons both clear or otherwise, a significant number of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches initially scheduled near the beginning or middle of the second half of 2018 are all slipping right into October, November, and December.
While communications satellite Telstar 18V’s two-week slip to NET September 8 and SAOCOM-1A’s own several-week tumble to October 7th appear to have their own respective and discernible reasons, namely some sort of range or payload issue (Telstar) and difficulties with the Falcon 9 rocket (SAOCOM), it’s much harder to know why multiple other payloads have slipped into late 2018.
Although the multiple slips and slides of several payloads and much of SpaceX’s H2 2018 launch manifest may be hard to parse alongside the year’s milestone first half, at least two reliable launch manifest sources (SpaceflightNow and one other) more or less independently corroborate the apparent realignment. Explanations, however, are far harder to find – to be expected in the business of space launch. Still, multiple launch delays can be traced to either payload or rocket issues.
-
- SpaceX technicians wrench on Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum engines. Raptor was apparently dramatically larger in person. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX technicians wrench on Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum engines. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX technicians wrench on Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum engines. (SpaceX)
Payload-side delays aplenty but rocket-slips, too
Iridium CEO Matt Desch, for example, noted that his company’s Iridium NEXT-8 launch of the constellation’s final 10 satellites is slipping from its original launch date target because of delays preparing the satellites for launch, rather than any issue with SpaceX rocket availability. While not official, the Falcon 9 launch of communications satellite Es’hail-2 has also rapidly jumped from the end of August or early September into Q4 2018 (likely NET October or November), hinting heavily at payload processing delays or technical issues with the complex satellite, as multi-month rocket-side delays would likely preclude interim September and October launches.
Still trying to nail the date down (satellite completion is gating, not rocket availability), but definitely won't be in September.
— Matt Desch (@IridiumBoss) August 13, 2018
Meanwhile, at least two of those prospective Q4 2018 SpaceX launches happen to be rideshare-dedicated, meaning that the payload consists of dozens of smaller satellites manifested and organized by a middleman company or agency. These two launches are Spaceflight’s SSO-A launch (~70 satellites) – currently NET November 2018 – and the US Air Force-led STP-2 mission, designed primarily to help SpaceX certify Falcon Heavy for Air Force launches while also placing roughly two dozen smaller satellites into orbit. STP-2 was delayed for multiple years as SpaceX gradually paced towards Falcon Heavy’s first real launch debut (February 2018), but launch delays (currently NET November 30 2018, probably 2019) will likely be caused by some combination of rocket, payload, and pad delays as SpaceX readies for what is essentially the second debut of much different Falcon Heavy.
While likely less a payload-side delay than a mountain-of-tedious-paperwork-and-bureaucracy delay, SpaceX’s NET November 2018 inaugural (uncrewed) demonstration launch of Crew Dragon, NASA scheduling documents published alongside an August 27 Advisory Council presentation suggest that the spacecraft will be ready for launch as early as September, whereas independent sources and visual observations have confirmed that the new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster (B1051) is either near the end or fully done with its McGregor, Texas acceptance testing. One certainly cannot blame SpaceX or NASA for caution at this stage, but the consequently uncertain launch debut of Crew Dragon almost certainly precludes any Falcon Heavy launches from Pad 39A in the interim, including STP-2’s theoretical NET November 30 launch date, which is literally inside Crew Dragon’s “November 2018” launch target.
-
- Falcon Heavy explodes off of Pad 39A, February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX technicians wrench on Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum engines. Raptor was apparently dramatically larger in person. (SpaceX)
-
- It’s currently unclear whether B1046 or B1048 will become the first SpaceX rocket to fly three times. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 stands proud after its West Coast launch debut, August 2nd. (Pauline Acalin)
On the other hand, several recent delays of SpaceX’s imminent (-ish) launch of Argentinian Earth observation satellite SAOCOM-1A have been suggested by several employees of the country’s CONAE space agency to be rocket-related, as they understand that the satellite itself is effectively ready to head to orbit at any time. It has yet to be officially confirmed, but it’s understood that Falcon 9 B1048 – previously flown on the launch of Iridium-7 – is being refurbished for SAOCOM-1A, potentially contributing to launch delays as SpaceX cautiously works through the inaugural reuses of some of its very first serial Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters.
Time will soon tell, as launching the roughly 8 to 10 launches tentatively remaining on SpaceX’s 2018 manifest will require extensive reuse of Block 5 boosters if multiple slips into 2019 are to be prevented. Regardless, best of luck to SpaceX’s technicians and engineers as they beat back rocket demons, grapple with uncooperative satellite payloads, and navigate the winding paths of Department of Defense and NASA rocket launch certifications.
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!
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
