SpaceX
SpaceX hangar packed with Falcon Heavy Block 5 boosters for early April debut
For a company that rarely reveals anything without explicit intent, a February 28th video posted by SpaceX during the lead-up to Crew Dragon’s launch debut featured a surprise cameo: two Block 5 side boosters meant to support Falcon Heavy’s commercial debut and second launch ever.
Likely a subtle nod to close observers and fans, the inclusion of Falcon Heavy is a perfect bit of foreshadowing for the next launch set to occur from Pad 39A after Crew Dragon’s flawless orbital debut. As of now, Falcon Heavy Flight 2 is settling in on a potential launch as early as the first week of April, although delays during the rocket’s critical preflight processing and static fire test are about as likely as they were during the vehicle’s inaugural mission. If the rocket’s first launch and booster recoveries are fully successful, both side boosters (and perhaps the center core) could fly for a second time as few as two months later in June 2019.
A number of photos taken by Instagram users visiting Kennedy Space Center appear to indicate that SpaceX has more or less completed the reconfiguration of Pad 39A’s transporter/erector (T/E), modifying the base with additional hold-down clamps to account for three Falcon boosters instead of the usual one. Ten days after the successful launch of Falcon 9 B1051 in support of Crew Dragon’s first mission to orbit, it’s likely that additional work remains to ensure that 39A is fully refurbished and reconfigured for Falcon Heavy.
For the heavy-lift rocket’s commercial debut and second flight ever, SpaceX is likely to be exceptionally cautious and methodical in their preflight preparations. This is especially necessary due to the fact that Falcon Heavy Flight 2 differs dramatically from Falcon Heavy’s demo configuration, degrading the applicability of some aspects of the data gathered during the rocket’s largely successful test flight.
Most notably, all three first stage boosters will be Block 5 variants on their first flights, whereas Flight 1’s first stage featured two flight-proven Block 2 boosters (B1023 and B1025) and one new Block 3 booster (B1033). Additionally, the center core – B1033 – was lost during a landing anomaly that prevented the booster from reigniting its engine for a landing burn, cutting off another valuable source of data that would have served to better inform engineers on the performance of Falcon Heavy’s complex and previously unproven mechanical stage separation mechanisms.
Falcon 9 Block 5 is a fairly radical departure from the Block 2 and 3 variants SpaceX based Falcon Heavy’s initial design on. It’s possible that the rocket’s engineers were able to at least set up that design and manufacturing work on a safe path to forward compatibility, but it’s equally possible that so much work was focused on simply getting the vehicle past its launch debut that compatibility with Falcon 9 Block 4 and 5 was pushed well into the periphery. Considering the fact that it has now been more than a year since Falcon Heavy’s February 6th, 2018 debut, the latter eventuality offers a much better fit. Nevertheless, with a solid 13-14 additional months of redesign and testing complete, it seems that SpaceX is keen to get its super heavy-lift launch vehicle back on the horse, so to speak.
The specific changes made in Falcon 9 Block 4 is unclear aside from a general improvement in Merlin 1D and MVac performance, as well as significant upgrades to Falcon 9’s upper stage, likely focused on US military and NASA requirements for long-coast capabilities on unique mission profiles. Most significantly, Falcon 9 Block 5 transitioned the SpaceX rocket to a radically different primary thrust structure (also known as the octaweb), replacing welded assemblies with bolted assemblies wherever possible. This simultaneously allows for easier repairs and modifications, improves ease of manufacture, and increases the structure’s overall strength, a critical benefit for Falcon Heavy’s heavily-stressed center core. Meanwhile, Falcon 9 Block 5 moved from Full Thrust’s (Block 3/4) maximum 6800 kN (1,530,000 lbf) of thrust to more than 7600 kN (1,710,000 lbf), an increase of roughly 12%. Combined with Block 5’s focus on extreme reusability, SpaceX engineers and technicians likely had to do a huge amount of work to leap from Falcon Heavy Flight 1 to Flight 2.
Aside from the presence of both Falcon Heavy side boosters, both of which were spotted arriving in Florida by local observers, the first Block 5 Falcon Heavy center core also very likely arrived within the last few months, followed rapidly by can be assumed to be the mission’s fairing and Falcon upper stage. Falcon Heavy’s commercial debut will see the rocket attempt to place communications satellite Arabsat 6A – weighing around 6000 kg (13,200 lb) – into a high-energy geostationary orbit, either direct-to-GEO or a transfer (GTO) variety.
If all goes according to plan, SpaceX will attempt to turn around Falcon Heavy’s Block 5 side boosters (B1052 and B1053) for Falcon Heavy’s third launch – the USAF’s STP-2 mission – as few as 60-80 days later, June 2019. According to NASASpaceflight, STP-2 will fly with a new center core (presumed to be B1057) instead of reusing Arabsat 6A’s well-cooked B1055 booster.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
Elon Musk
Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network.
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.
Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.
A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.
The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted.
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
Elon Musk clarifies Tesla Cybertruck ’10 day’ comment, fans respond
