News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy begins to arrive at 39A as center core heads to TX
Approximately a week after a Falcon Heavy side booster – the first of two – arrived at SpaceX’s LC-39A launch complex, a sign of late-stage preparation for the massive rocket’s second and third launches, a Falcon Heavy center stage was spotted rolling through the Waco, Texas locale on its way to SpaceX’s McGregor testing facilities.
Signified by the outlines of unusual bumps under the Falcon booster’s protective shrink wrap, this probable Falcon Heavy center core’s Texas arrival indicates that SpaceX has most likely completed static fire testing of both side boosters, with the second booster now likely to depart McGregor and/or arrive at SpaceX’s Florida facilities in the coming weeks.
The first component of Falcon Heavy Block 5 has arrived at HLC-39A! https://t.co/38spGaCps9
— Thomas Burghardt (@TGMetsFan98) December 22, 2018
In February 2018, Falcon Heavy took flight for the first time ever, bringing to an end an almost mythical series of delays that pushed the rocket’s debut back more than five years. Aside from the unintentional demise of Falcon Heavy Flight 1’s center core, the inaugural launch was a spectacular and technologically valuable success, perfectly verifying the rocket’s ability to safely ignite, launch, separate, and recover two Falcon 9-class boosters simultaneously. SpaceX also took the opportunity – a payload with no practical value aside from inspiration – to perform a successful six-hour coast of the Falcon upper stage, demonstrating a capability critical for many potentially valuable launch contracts.
Now verified by planning schedules, SpaceX plans to attempt a truly impressive feat in the first half of 2019. Assuming all goes well during the center booster’s static fire and the subsequent integration and static fire of all three first stages, the company intends to launch the same Falcon Heavy hardware (all three boosters) twice in as little as two months, currently tentatively penciled in for February/March and April 2019.
Surprise sighting of a #SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket booster in my hometown headed a few minutes down the road to the McGregor, TX test site. First time in years seeing a booster in transit “in the wild” like this. 🚀 @elonmusk #falcon9 #falconheavy #STEM #bfr #space pic.twitter.com/daEz4NZPi5
— Abby Garrett (@abbygarrettart) January 1, 2019
Corroborated a few weeks ago by a NASA official involved in one of the payloads that will be present on that planned April launch, SpaceX plans to attempt recovery of both the side boosters and center core and rapidly refurbish them after their first launch in February or March, nominally placing the 6000 kg (~13,200 lb) Arabsat 6A satellite into a high-energy orbit. Perhaps as few as 4-8 weeks later, the rocket will be reintegrated, perform a second static fire at Pad 39A, and launch once again with a USAF rideshare known as Space Test Program (STP) 2, a program specifically designed to allow the Air Force to support low-risk test launches of unproven rockets.
Even more so than the fact that an ~8-week Falcon Heavy turnaround would simultaneously break SpaceX’s previous booster turnaround record in triplicate, the biggest reason to be skeptical of these plans is the fact that this schedule appears to require that the USAF fly a mission on not one but three flight-proven Falcon boosters. This stands at odds with the military branch’s unwillingness (by all appearances) to so much as allow a brand new Falcon 9 enough propellant margin (typically just a few percent) to land itself after the December 23rd launch of GPS III SV01, let alone allow their satellites to ride on a previously-flown rocket.
-
- Falcon Heavy is composed of a Falcon 9 upper stage and three Falcon 9-class boosters. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s simultaneous side booster recovery. This will likely be repeated for both Arabsat 6A and STP-2. (SpaceX)
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
-
- The USAF’s STP-2, a combination of a few dozen different satellites. (USAF)
The major wrench in the machine here is the fact that GPS III SV01 most likely cost the USAF upwards of $700M to procure and will ultimately become a critical part of a widespread infrastructural upgrade, whereas STP-2 features two dozen or so small satellites worth dramatically less than the single GPS satellite SpaceX launched last month. STP-2 also operates under a program that is in large part meant to offer opportunities for new or wholly unproven launch vehicles (like Falcon Heavy) to conduct experimental launches, carrying the assumption that certifying those rockets for national security space (NSS) missions would be in the best interests of the Air Force and DoD.
As such, the back-to-back Falcon Heavy launch schedule is by no means impossible despite the fact that it offers up many reasons to doubt its plausibility. Either way, the fact that the next Falcon Heavy’s center core has already left SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory – following in the footsteps of two new side boosters – is a nearly unequivocal sign that the rocket’s second launch rapidly approaching.
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
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.
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.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
