News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy goes vertical with Musk’s Tesla as launch nears
After approximately half a decade of concerted and less-than-patient waiting, long-time followers of SpaceX have, for the first time ever, seen SpaceX’s first completed Falcon Heavy rocket roll out to the launch pad and go vertical at the same complex that hosted every single Apollo moon landing, LC-39A.
This is a historic moment in SpaceX’s history, even if it culminates in nothing more than a quiet rollout and roll-back to the historic pad’s integration facilities. For at least several years, it has been a running (lighthearted) joke within the fan community that Falcon Heavy is permanently six months away from launch. Outside of the rocket company’s supporters, however, that fan humor gained a heavier tinge, and Falcon Heavy essentially became the strawman with which SpaceX detractors could ream the company’s greater (and even relatively minor) ambitions as over-promised, unrealistic dreams to one day also become permanently delayed. While seasoned spaceflight journalists rarely partook in the Falcon Heavy bashing, pop journalism and the titans of the global launch industry certainly took advantage of the apparent weakness as the preeminent example of SpaceX’s tendency towards delays. Even SpaceX’s conservative supporters understandably saw the significance when two customers ultimately chose to move their payloads elsewhere due to Falcon Heavy’s relentless delays.
Falcon Heavy went vertical at LC-39A for the first time today! Here’s a few shots (taken through much haze) from Playalinda Beach. pic.twitter.com/gsOL9tAfTN
— John Kraus (@johnkrausphotos) December 28, 2017
However, the reality was rather clear to those that followed the agile launch company and paid attention to the statements of its executive management, including CEO Elon Musk. Ultimately, Falcon Heavy was not a priority and was only ever going to capitalize upon a minority of the satellite launch industry, given the rarity of satellites heavy enough to need the massive vehicle. While Falcon Heavy would undoubtedly be invaluable for SpaceX’s grander ambitions of interplanetary exploration and transport, those ambitions simply did not compare in importance to solving Falcon 9 design and supply chain issues that caused the failures of CRS-7 and Amos-6. Nor were they more crucial than the launch company’s need for a stable cadre of trusting customers, simply upgrading the already-operational Falcon 9, or the perfection of first stage reusability – all of which would explicitly impact the utility of Falcon Heavy.
A panorama of LC-39A from late-November. Falcon Heavy will likely launch from this pad in January 2018. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
SpaceX’s official July 2017 confirmation that Red Dragon had been cancelled further guaranteed that Falcon Heavy would only ever be a niche product, maybe even little more than a symbolic stopgap to fill a tiny industry niche and soothe delay-stricken nerves. SpaceX does have at least a handful of Falcon Heavy customers still hopefully awaiting its operational status, but it is quite clear that the company sees its value most as a method of both reassuring the world that its infamous delays are only temporary, as well as relatively economically fueling the development of a reusable super-heavy launch vehicle, expertise that would inevitably benefit the Mars-focused BFR as it too begins development. At a minimum, it will provide SpaceX’s launch, design, and manufacturing experts a sort of base of knowledge about building and operating rockets with ~30 or more first stage engines – the 2017 iteration of BFR is likely to sport 31. It’s also possible that Falcon Heavy could provide the margins necessary to allow SpaceX to attempt recoveries of Falcon’s second stage, a purely experimental effort that would feed directly into the development of the fully-reusable BFR upper stage the company hopes to build, BFS.
Thus, while Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch may not be explicitly important to SpaceX’s near-term business strategy, it will in almost every way mark one of its first tailor-made steps towards Mars, perhaps both literally and figuratively. Rather humorously, SpaceX (or Elon Musk … probably just Elon Musk) has chosen to replace the boilerplate mass simulator often flown as a payload for inaugural launches of most launch vehicles (Falcon 9 included) with a rather unique mass simulator: Musk’s own first-generation Tesla Roadster. While it has yet to be specified what the specific destination of the second stage and Roadster are, nor what – if any – functional payload is to be included, Musk did suggest that the destination would be a “billion-year Mars orbit.” The nitpick here is hugely significant, as ‘simply’ launching the Roadster into a solar orbit at a similar distance to Mars (still an impressive accomplishment) would be decidedly less impressive than actually injecting the Roadster into orbit around Mars. Pictures released by SpaceX show no additional boost stages attached to the Roadster, so a Martian orbit would require Falcon Heavy’s second stage to coast in deep space for several months while generating enough power to prevent its propellant from freezing and maintain contact with ground control, especially in the rather likely event that SpaceX (and Musk) hope to acquire some rather absurd and iconic images from the inaugural launch and its space travels.
-
- The first-ever Falcon Heavy (sans payload and fairing) shown inside Pad 39A’s horizontal integration facility (HIF). (SpaceX)
-
- Elon Musk’s Roadster seen before being encapsulated in Falcon Heavy’s massive payload fairing. Below the Tesla is the payload adapter, which connects it to the rocket. (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)
History and symbolism aside, it can now be said with utter certainty that Falcon Heavy is very real and is likely to launch very soon. The vehicle’s first-ever integrated rollout to Pad 39A is almost certainly intended only for “fit-checks,” a verification that the pad and brand new vehicle are meshing well together, but it is still the first time in the company’s history that FH visibly exists, and there can be little doubt that the photo opportunity was not taken advantage of. After fit checks are performed, likely over the course of a day or two, Falcon Heavy will be most likely be brought horizontal and rolled back into 39A’s integration facilities, where it will be prepared for its first full-up wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire, possibly including the cautionary removal of the second stage and Roadster payload. Because the vehicle is inherently new, as are many of the upgraded ground systems needed to support it, bugs are highly probable along the road to launch. However, if the first WDR and static fire go precisely as planned, the first launch attempt can be expected to occur about a week later – maybe sooner, maybe later.
All things considered, SpaceX is clearly moving full speed ahead with Falcon Heavy’s launch preparations, and it seems highly probable that the company’s schedule will allow for January launch, even if minor issues mean that multiple WDRs or static fires are required. Elon Musk certainly hedged his bets earlier this summer by aggressively inflating the probability that Falcon Heavy fails on its launch pad, famously stating that a success in his eyes would be the vehicle clearing the pad without destroying LC-39A. In reality, SpaceX would not in a million years haphazardly risk the destruction of Pad 39A, and the company is almost certainly quite confident that the pad is at most marginally at risk of severe damage. One thing that Musk cannot be criticized for is the argument that one way or another, Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch will be a sight to behold. While the payload may indeed be heading to or towards Mars, SpaceX still plans to attempt recovery of all three of Falcon Heavy’s first stages: both side cores are expected to land almost simultaneously at LZ-1’s two landing pads, while the center booster will follow a parabola out into the Atlantic for a landing aboard the droneship Of Course I Still Love You, truly a spectacle to behold regardless of success or failure.
My capture of @SpaceX #FalconHeavy making her #39A debut today. Taken with my Nikon D3300 with 300mm lens from the Canaveral National Seashore Vista 8. I must admit I have enjoyed watching the reactions to seeing it on the pad. My reaction… WHOA @NASASpaceflight @lorengrush pic.twitter.com/fEntFCwCO8
— Julia Bergeron (@julia_bergeron) December 28, 2017
Follow along live on Twitter and Instagram as our launch photographer Tom Cross documents Falcon Heavy’s last steps along its journey to first flight, as well as Falcon 9’s imminent launch of the mysterious Zuma payload, currently NET January 4.
Cover photo courtesy of spaceflight fan and photographer Richard Angle. Follow him on Instagram at @rdanglephoto!
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.
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet is its leading competitive advantage in the U.S. airline industry. However, in recent comments, while he described the service as “the biggest competitive advantage” the carrier currently holds, he also acknowledged that the edge is temporary.
“…everybody eventually is going to have high-speed low earth orbit internet connectivity. It’s going to be a must-have. We are going to have a few years of being the only airline that has it at scale, and that’s our mission,” Kirby said. Until everyone has it, United aims to capitalize on its head start by converting trial users into long-term loyal customers.
🚨 United CEO Scott Kirby calls Starlink “the biggest competitive advantage,” but says it’s temporary.
“I think it’s the biggest competitive advantage. And it’s temporary. Like it’s not, everybody eventually is going to have high speed low earth orbit internet connectivity. It’s going to be a must-have. But we are going to have a few years of being the only airline that has it at scale, and that’s our mission.”
“I think we’re going to convince customers that United is the best airline and we’re going to get customers to switch their loyalty, to get our credit card, switch their loyalty to United. Not because of Starlink. They’re going to try us for Starlink and they’re going to stay with all the other technology, and everything else is better, and the technology in particular is so much better than technology other, and it’s accelerating because we’ve got the right tech stack, and because we’re like, our gap is getting wider and wider with our technology every day.”
Next: LAX becomes United’s first 100% Starlink hub in the first half of next year, and the United app will show your Starlink odds for each flight. https://t.co/hToyFWaWj7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 27, 2026
United has moved faster than its rivals on Starlink installations. As of mid-to-late October 2026, the system was on roughly 43 percent of its fleet, with plans to reach 61 percent by year-end, 87 percent by June 2027, and full fleet coverage by the end of next year.
The airline already operates more Starlink-equipped flights than the rest of the U.S. industry combined. Los Angeles International Airport is scheduled to become United’s first 100 percent Starlink hub in the first half of 2027, and the carrier’s app will display the likelihood that any given flight has the service.
Kirby has pointed to early evidence that the offering influences booking decisions. Some passengers loyal to other airlines are already switching flights for Starlink connectivity, something the airline, along with American Airlines, has tried to leverage against competing airlines. Both companies used status-match programs, and some of those customers are pursuing company-specific credit cards, which signals an intent to stay.
Once onboard, these customers encounter the airline’s broader investments in aircraft, larger seat-back screens, oversized bins, connection tools, and a mobile app that Kirby says outperforms competitors. Wi-Fi satisfaction scores on Starlink-equipped planes have been reported to be nearly double those on aircraft with other systems.
Competitors are moving slowly to do the same. Southwest Airlines began installations in 2025 and expects to complete them soon. Delta is pursuing Amazon’s Leo system, while American expects to start Starlink work in early 2027 and has not yet detailed regional-fleet plans. This timeline gap gives United a multi-year window in which it remains the only major U.S. carrier offering Starlink at scale.
Kirby has framed the strategy as pressing that advantage while simultaneously widening gaps in other technology areas so that customers who try United for the Wi-Fi remain for the overall experience.
The approach reflects a calculated bet that superior in-flight connectivity can accelerate share gains and support longer-term financial targets, including a 10 percent pre-tax margin goal.
High-speed internet is particularly valued by premium and business travelers who can work or stream reliably. As low-Earth-orbit service becomes ubiquitous, the temporary nature of the pure connectivity edge means United’s retention will depend on whether its other product and operational improvements keep pace.
Tesla Cybercab skips the traditional paint shop entirely, marking an unorthodox process for coloring the fully autonomous vehicle. However, the decision was a smart one, as it slashed factory costs, floor space utilization, and complexity, since Tesla relied on specialized alloys and in-mold coloring.
Munro Live was given the opportunity to do a factory walkthrough with Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy, who explained and detailed how Cybercab production at Giga Texas eliminates one of the automotive manufacturing industry’s most expensive and space-hungry elements.
A conventional paint line can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and require a million man-hours to build. Moravy framed the choice around Tesla’s core rule: “Question the requirements: why do you need paint?”
🚨 Super cool quote from the Cybercab breakdown on the decision to avoid traditional paint:
“One of the most expensive parts of the factory is a paint line… a few hundred million dollars, a million man hours to build one… rule number one at Tesla, question the requirements. Why do you need paint?… the alloys we use in the castings… don’t oxidize and reduce strength over time.” -@larsmoravy
Model Y and Cybertruck bodies are fully coated and painted. On Cybercab, only the side pieces get the anti-corrosion dip coat, and there’s no paint shop at all, which helps cut factory floor space per car by about 50%.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
The structural answer lies in material selection. The aluminum alloys used in Cybercab’s front and rear castings do not oxidize and lose strength over time, the way many common automotive aluminum alloys do. Only the side modules, built around hot-stamped boron-steel door rings, receive an anti-corrosion e-coat, or dip coat. Front and rear modules skip coating altogether.
Model Y and Model 3 bodies, by contrast, are fully coated and painted.
Exterior colors come from the plastics shop, which Tesla engineers described as “our paint shop” for the Cybercab. Body panels are produced via reaction injection molding, referred to as RIM. Color is then mixed into a polyurethane resin at the mix head immediately before injection, so the panel emerges already colored with a Class-A surface.
Robots trim overflow to control sink marks and flow lines. The process avoids conventional spray-paint defects like orange peel and paint bleed. Scratches can still be repaired with compatible coatings that behave “basically like paint.” Because color is integral rather than a surface layer, shallow scratches do not expose a contrasting undercoat.
The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color
Tesla has also explored related approaches, including in-mold lamination and painted films on stamped panels.
The manufacturing payoff is substantial because removing the paint shop, combined with the “unboxed” modular process that builds and tests front, rear, side, and center modules in parallel before a short final assembly, cuts factory floor space per vehicle by about 50 percent.
Final assembly itself uses only about 25 automated stations, far fewer than the typical Model Y line, and the overall line runs at about 78 percent automation, Moravy said. The approach also eliminates volatile organic compound emissions associated with traditional spray painting for these panels and shortens the coloring cycle from hours to minutes.
Cybercab’s paint strategy is clearly less about aesthetics than about systematically deleting capital-intensive, energy-heavy, and space-consuming steps once material science and process design make them unnecessary. It is a concrete example of Tesla applying first-principles questioning to one of the auto industry’s most entrenched factory requirements.
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Starlink is ‘biggest competitive advantage,’ but it’s temporary, United CEO says
