SpaceX
SpaceX’s April 7th Falcon Heavy launch a step toward new commercial markets
A bit less than 14 months after SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy took to the sky for the first time, the company’s super-heavy-lift rocket – the only such vehicle in the world that is currently operational – has garnered a pending date for its second launch attempt and commercial debut.
While there is some inherent uncertainty surrounding the (once again) fairly new rocket, SpaceX has now officially filed a plan with the Cape Canaveral range authorities that would see Falcon Heavy nominally conduct a critical static fire test as soon as March 31st, followed one week later by a launch target of no earlier than (NET) 6:36 pm EDT (22:36 UTC), April 7th. Set to place the ~6000 kg (13,200 lb) Arabsat 6A communications satellite in a high-energy geostationary orbit, a successful mission that ultimately proves Falcon Heavy’s commercial utility could also raise global launch market interest in the rocket, including potential anchor customers like NASA.
Falcon Heavy enters a different era
While it could be fairly argued that SpaceX has already near-flawlessly demonstrated Falcon Heavy’s performance and basic existence with the rocket’s February 2018 launch debut, that debut is really only half the story when it comes to breaking into commercial markets as a serious contender. Above all else, the fact remains that Falcon Heavy is often seen as infamous for what is perceived as a torturous, delay-ridden period of development, a common partial misunderstanding that has not exactly been combated by the now 14+ months separating the rocket’s first and second launch attempts. In the industries that have the most potential interest in Falcon Heavy, on-time launches are a central selling point of launch vehicles, with affordability effectively being a luxury behind timeliness and overall reliability.
Despite the success of Falcon Heavy’s debut, what SpaceX has not yet demonstrated is the ability to reliably and accurately insert a large customer payload into a specific orbit, for a specific (i.e. contracted) price. Adding another partial hurdle to the path before Falcon Heavy, the rocket’s first launch featured a hardware setup that could be described as a one-off, owing to the fact that Flight 1 utilized a mishmash of flight-proven Block 2 boosters and one unique Block 3-derived center core. By the time that the rocket was ready for its first launch, SpaceX was just three months away from debuting Falcon 9’s Block 5 variation, framed as the family’s ‘final’ version. Featuring an extensive range of major changes to Falcon structures, Merlin engines, avionics, reusability, and manufacturing processes, this ultimately meant that the next Falcon Heavy to fly would be a significantly different rocket compared to its sole predecessor.
While we actually know very little about what the task of re-certifying Falcon Heavy’s Block 5 upgrade for flight entailed, the minimum of 14 months separating flights 1 and 2 offers at least a partial idea of just how extensive the required rework was. With a long-delayed customer’s extremely expensive (likely $150-300M+) satellite on the line, there is a surplus of pressure on SpaceX to both complete this launch flawlessly and do so as soon as possible.
If all goes well with the imminent launch of Arabsat 6A and the USAF’s STP-2 mission shortly thereafter, SpaceX will have done a great deal to assuage many industry doubts about Falcon Heavy, particularly its practical launch availability and the company’s ability to ensure that its launches are at least roughly on-time. As of today, SpaceX has won five firm launch contracts for Falcon Heavy – three in the last year alone – and has the potential to acquire several additional contracts in the coming years, ranging from additional national security satellites from the NRO and USAF to flagship NASA science missions like the Jupiter-bound Europa Clipper. Aside from Blue Origin’s New Glenn (launch debut NET 2021), ULA’s Vulcan (also NET 2021), and ULA’s Delta IV Heavy (likely far too expensive), SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy is also the frontrunner for commercial contracts to launch segments of a proposed lunar space station, with launches potentially beginning as early as the early 2020s.
Further still, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine announced earlier this month that the space agency was actively considering a stand-in fix for
Either way, the long term prospects of Falcon Heavy rocket could potentially be both lucrative for SpaceX and immensely beneficial for satellite industries and national space agencies alike. If SpaceX can demonstrate that it has inherited Falcon 9’s now thoroughly impressive reliability and moderate to great schedule assurance, the market for Falcon Heavy could end up supporting a major fraction of SpaceX’s sizable launch business.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reiterates rapid Starship V3 timeline with next launch in sight
Musk shared the update in a brief post on X, writing, “Starship flies again next month.”
Elon Musk has confirmed that Starship will fly again next month, reiterating SpaceX’s aggressive timeline for the first launch of its Starship V3 rocket.
Musk shared the update in a brief post on X, writing, “Starship flies again next month.” The CEO’s post was accompanied by a video of Starship’s Super Heavy booster being successfully caught by a launch tower in Starbase, Texas.
The timeline is notable. In late January, Musk stated that Starship’s next flight, Flight 12, was expected in about six weeks. This placed the expected mission date sometime in March. That estimate aligned with SpaceX’s earlier statement that Starship’s 12th flight test “remains targeted for the first quarter of 2026.”
If the vehicle does indeed fly next month, it would mark the debut of Starship V3, the upgraded platform expected to feature the rocket’s new Raptor V3 engines.
Raptor V3 is designed to deliver significantly higher thrust than earlier versions while reducing cost and weight. Starship V3 itself is expected to be optimized for manufacturability, a critical step if SpaceX intends to scale production toward frequent launches for Starlink, lunar missions, and eventually Mars.
Starship V3 is widely viewed as the version that transitions the program from experimental testing to true operational scaling. Previous iterations have completed multiple integrated flight tests, with mixed outcomes but steady progress. Expectations are high that SpaceX is now working on Starship’s refinement.
An aggressive launch schedule supports several priorities at once. It advances Starlink’s next-generation satellite deployment, supports NASA’s lunar ambitions under Artemis, and keeps SpaceX on track for its longer-term Moon and Mars objectives.
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 reiterates rapid Starship V3 timeline with next launch in sight
Tesla Model Y L six-seater approved for Australia ahead of launch
