News
SpaceX gets ready to fire up Falcon Heavy for the first time at Cape Canaveral
As it gradually nears a launch date sometime in late January or early February, SpaceX’s new super-heavy launch vehicle (SHLV) Falcon Heavy has weathered a number of schedule delays in preparation for a historic and crucial moment – its first static fire/test ignition that’s currently scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, beginning at 4pm EST (2100 GMT).
Those focused on the gritty details of SpaceX’s prelaunch procedures will have immediately noted how different Falcon Heavy’s operations are when compared with SpaceX’s workhorse rocket and Heavy’s progenitor, Falcon 9. For a typical launch of Falcon 9, the rocket and payload will normally arrive at the given launch pad around a month or so before the anticipated launch date. Next, the satellite payload is encapsulated inside Falcon 9’s payload fairing, typically two or so weeks before launch. Pad facilities would be thoroughly examined after the previous launch to remedy any wear and tear and ensure that it is in good working order ahead of the next mission. Approximately a week before launch, Falcon 9’s first and second stages are mated together inside the pad’s integration facilities, the pad’s Transport/Erector/Launcher (TEL) is rolled into the integration facilities, and the Falcon 9 booster and second stage (sans payload) are mounted onto the TEL. Finally, the TEL and rocket are rolled out to the launch pad for a brief 3-5 second static fire around 5-7 days before launch. After testing is completed, the TEL is rolled back to the integration facilities, the payload fairing and payload are attached to the rocket, and the whole stack is once more rolled back to the pad, ready for launch.
-
- The TEL seen at LC-39A in early 2017. (SpaceX)
-
- The base of the TEL now sports multiple additional launch clamps (large grey protrusions) that will be needed for Falcon Heavy’s three first stage cores. (SpaceX)
-
- Finally, the fairing is transported vertically to the HIF, where it can be flipped horizontal and attached to its rocket. (Reddit /u/St-Jed-of-Calumet)
For a used booster, this is the sum total of the prelaunch procedures it will go through at the pad, after recovery and refurbishment. For all new boosters, however, SpaceX currently conducts a thorough slate of tests for all Merlin 1D and MVac (2nd stage) rocket engines, as well as both the integrated first and second stages at its McGregor, Texas facilities. These tests last far longer than those conducted at the launch pad, and typically run for the full length of a launch in order to better simulate the stresses flight hardware will end up experiencing. In other words, new Falcon 9 hardware always has to make it through hundreds of seconds of live firing and post-test analysis before finally being shipped to SpaceX’s launch facilities, where it conducts the aforementioned brief static fire at the pad.
A whole new bird of prey
To put it simply, Falcon Heavy is a whole different animal when it comes to prelaunch testing. Due to the rocket’s sheer size and power in its fully integrated state, McGregor simply does not have the capability to conduct the same tests it does with Falcon 9. While two of the first Heavy’s three first stage boosters are modified flight-proven Falcon 9s (from Thaicom-8 and CRS-9), the center core required a far more extensive suite of changes from a normal Falcon 9 in order to survive the added stresses it would experience during a Falcon Heavy launch. Although the full-up vehicle could not be tested in Texas with a full-length firing, each of its three first stages and upper stage went through the same tests as a normal Falcon 9. Before that, both side core and center core structural test articles (STA) went through a large amount of mechanical stress testing to verify that Falcon Heavy’s re-engineered design would be able to easily survive the stresses of launch and then some. In short, months and months of work have gone into the hardware that both preceded and makes up the Falcon Heavy rocket currently vertical and weeks from launch at Kennedy Space Center.
However, SpaceX has learned the hard way that simulation and partial physical testing can only go so far, and cannot be completely trusted when it comes to flying new hardware, as evidenced by the both Falcon 1 and the company’s several first attempts at recovering a Falcon 9 booster (intact, at least…). Even the best and most brilliant engineers and technicians can only do so much without testing the real thing in real conditions, something that can often result in unintended failures – especially the case with new technologies. Falcon Heavy is indeed a new technology to some extent or at least incorporates numerous new technologies that SpaceX has little to no operational experience with. These and relatively untried aspects include the simultaneous ignition and operation of twenty seven already powerful Merlin 1D engines, new stresses on the center booster during launch, a unique non-explosive side booster separation mechanism, the also near-simultaneous recovery of three first stages, and a second stage tasked with placing an unusual payload in the highest orbit SpaceX has yet to attempt.
Hence Elon Musk’s aggressive expectation maintenance over the last year or so, in which he spared no punches while imparting upon several audiences the likelihood that Falcon Heavy’s first launch would fail entirely, and maybe even destroy the launch pad. In reality, SpaceX is clearly doing everything in their power to ensure that the massive rocket’s first launch is a total success.
-
- Falcon Heavy vertical at Pad 39A on Thursday, January 11. After a successful rehearsal, the static fire was scrubbed due to a small hardware bug. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- The white bars in this photo are half of Falcon Heavy’s seperation mechanism. A number of actuators take the place of the more common solid rocket motors used with vehicles like the Delta IV Heavy. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s three boosters and 27 Merlin 1D engines on full display. (SpaceX)
What’s next for Falcon Heavy?
Recent delays to the vehicle’s first static fire test at SpaceX’s Launch Complex 39A are strong examples of this cautious approach. While fans and outsiders alike may be nipping at the bit for the vehicle’s long-awaited inaugural static fire and launch, SpaceX clearly is laser-focused on very thoroughly testing the vehicle and is exerting great caution. After the first static fire attempt was delayed, reportedly due to a buggy launch clamp, SpaceX had nevertheless completed its first (presumably successful) wet dress rehearsal (WDR), which saw the vehicle prepared for launch with a full load of propellant and other miscellaneous fluids. After a brief period back horizontal at the pad, likely to repair whatever fault initially caused the delay, Falcon Heavy has been vertical at the pad for the last several days. Intriguingly, albeit unsurprisingly, tank venting was reported early Sunday by local observers. This indicates that SpaceX conducted at least one additional wet dress rehearsal with Falcon Heavy, likely both contributing to an additional delay of the replacement static fire date (Monday) and solidifying confidence in the new test date, Tuesday, January 16.
Compared with the results of the first WDR (a three-day delay), the one day delay that followed Sunday’s rehearsal is great news for what is effectively a mature launch vehicle prototype. SpaceX’s confidence is clearly growing, and while all delays of the static fire will likely push back the launch date at least as much, Falcon Heavy will almost certainly find itself days away from its inaugural liftoff sometime in very late January or February 2018.
Follow along live as Teslarati’s launch photographer Tom Cross covers Falcon Heavy’s exciting series of events while they happen on our Instagram.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
