News
SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch in two years is finally coming together
For the first time in more than two years, SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch and dual-booster landing appears to be right around the corner – and it comes with a catch.
In February 2018, after years of anticipation, SpaceX successfully launched its triple-booster Falcon Heavy rocket for the first time in a spectacular show of force. Though the ‘center core’ booster got a little melty on its extremely high-speed reentry and was lost before it could attempt to land, the rocket’s twin side boosters performed an iconic near-simultaneous landing just a handful of miles away from where they lifted off.
Then Falcon Heavy took a good, long break. Ultimately, it would turn out that the debut vehicle was effectively a one-off and over the course of 14 months, SpaceX fairly quickly designed, built, and qualified an entirely new Falcon Heavy rocket based on Falcon 9’s new and improved Block 5 variant. In April 2019, after a few minor delays, that Falcon Heavy Block 5 rocket completed its own launch debut and first mission for a paying customer. This time around, all three boosters – two by land and one by sea – survived reentry and performed flawless landings on a drone ship and two Landing Zones.
A mere two months later, both of Falcon Heavy Block 5’s first two recovered side boosters flew again in support of the US Air Force’s STP-2 mission – a combined demonstration flight and rideshare mostly designed to push the rocket to its limits and help the military qualify it for high-value payloads. Once more, those side boosters successfully returned for a simultaneous landing at SpaceX’s Landing Zones but the mission’s Block 5 center core’s reentry was – as SpaceX itself partially expected – too hot, burning essential components and resulting in a hard ‘landing’ in the Atlantic Ocean. Otherwise, the mission was a spectacular success and gave the US military practically all the data it needed to qualify the world’s largest operational rocket to launch its payloads.
Shockingly, however, that June 2019 launch would end up being Falcon Heavy’s third and latest. In the almost 26 months since, the rocket hasn’t flown once. Originally scheduled to launch a fourth time as early as Q4 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic ultimately delayed the rocket’s next two launches (or gave the satellite manufacturer(s) perfect scapegoats for technical delays) into 2021.
Known as USSF-44 and USSF-52 (formerly AFSPC-44/52), both missions are scheduled to launch ethereal US military spy and/or communications satellites. USSF-44 is arguably the most important, as it will mark SpaceX’s first direct launch to geostationary orbit (GEO) for any customer – let alone one as exacting as the US military. USSF-52 is a much simpler and more traditional launch to an elliptical geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
About a year ago, for unknown reasons, the two missions swapped positions, with USSF-44 taking the lead. Expected to launch in June 2021 as of early this year, SpaceflightNow first reported that USSF-44 had slipped further still to October – and USSF-52 into 2022 – this May. Since then, that’s where the mission’s schedule has tentatively lain.
Finally, on August 12th, SpaceX filed an FCC application for rocket communication permissions. While otherwise ordinary, this particular request stated that it was for Falcon Heavy recovery operations and, more specifically, for the simultaneous recovery of two Falcon Heavy boosters at sea. Out of an abundance of caution and conservatism and combined with the generally challenging nature of direct-to-GEO launches, Falcon Heavy’s first such mission for the US military will require SpaceX to expend the rocket’s center booster and recover both side boosters at sea with two separate drone ships.
Falcon Heavy’s USSF-52 GTO launch isn’t as demanding and its mission profile is expected to allow SpaceX to recover all three boosters. As such, an FCC filing for a dual-drone-ship Falcon Heavy side booster recoveries practically guarantees that it’s for USSF-44. Per the application, SpaceX expects the mission to occur no earlier than September 25th. Almost simultaneously, launch photographer Ben Cooper also updated a long-running list of upcoming East Coast launches, confirming that Falcon Heavy’s fourth launch (USSF-44) remains on track for October 2021.
Ultimately, while delays are possible and likely probable, there now appears to be a strong chance that Falcon Heavy will launch for the first time in 28 months before the end of 2021.
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
