News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket kicks off fifth mission with most spectacular launch yet
SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy lifted off shortly after sunset on the US Space Force’s USSF-67 mission, producing one of the massive commercial rocket’s most spectacular launches yet.
Powered by three Falcon 9-derived boosters, each with nine Merlin 1D engines, Falcon Heavy fired up and soared off of SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad at the start of its Sunday launch window. Producing up to 2326 tons (5.13 million lbf) of thrust shortly after liftoff, Falcon Heavy upheld its position as the world’s most powerful commercial rocket and the second most powerful operational rocket.
USSF-67 largely mirrored SpaceX’s November 1st, 2022 USSF-44 Falcon Heavy launch, and even used the same side boosters. Flying for the second time in 75 days, B1064 and B1065 aced their roles in the mission and separated from Falcon Heavy’s expendable center booster (or core) around three minutes after liftoff. The side boosters immediately flipped around with thrusters powered by compressed nitrogen gas and ignited three of their nine Merlin 1D engines to boost back to the Florida coast. After coasting back to Florida, they completed brief reentry burns to lessen atmospheric heating and fired up one last time to gently touch down at SpaceX’s LZ-1 and LZ-2 landing pads.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Another mysterious military mission
Because Falcon Heavy lifted off after sunset, local skies were dark and the rocket quickly climbed back into daylight, creating spectacular contrast between twilight and the bright rocket exhaust. When Falcon Heavy’s side boosters flipped around and reignited, their high-velocity exhaust plumes slammed into the center core’s opposing plume, producing spectacular interactions and a nebula-like cloud that caught even more of the daylight. Had Falcon Heavy lifted off just a handful of minutes later, a darker sky could have made for an even more incredible ‘nebula’ or ‘jellyfish’, but the rocket’s first twilight launch was still spectacular.
After both side boosters touched down, SpaceX ended its live coverage at the request of the Space Force, reiterating the mission’s secretive customer and nature. Compared to USSF-44, the USSF hasn’t confirmed much about the USSF-67 mission’s payloads, but Falcon Heavy is known to be carrying a geostationary communications relay satellite called CBAS-2 and likely built by Boeing.
CBAS-2 is joined by Northrop Grumman’s third Long Duration Propulsive EELV or LDPE-3A, a combination of a propulsive kick stage and a satellite. LDPE-3A is carrying a collection of rideshare satellites and payloads and is designed to operate for months in orbit. Using USSF-44 as a guide, the total USSF-67 payload could weigh roughly 3.75 to 4.75 tons (8,250-10,500 lb).
Climbing to GSO
While small compared to ordinary payloads, Falcon Heavy is launching USSF-67 directly to a geosynchronous orbit. Direct-to-GEO/GSO launches are exceptionally challenging for the rocket. Falcon Heavy must first sacrifice one of its three boosters just to ensure the Falcon upper stage is traveling fast enough and has enough propellant to spare when it separates. The upper stage must then conduct at least three or four burns.
The first burn likely carried the upper stage and USSF-67 payload into a parking orbit around 300 kilometers (~185 mi) above Earth’s surface. A second burn of the upper stage’s Merlin Vacuum engine will lift the pair into a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) with the low end still around 300 kilometers but the high end around 35,800 kilometers (~22,250 mi). Finally, the upper stage must survive a roughly five-hour coast to that apogee. During that coast, the rocket must survive passes through both of Earth’s harsh radiation belts and maintain perfect control of its orientation and tank pressures to keep its refined kerosene fuel from freezing, its cryogenic liquid oxygen (LOx) from boiling away, and itself from bursting as its propellant warms and expands.
If it does all of those things right, the upper stage will be able to complete a circularization burn at apogee and deploy its CBAS-2 and LPDE-3A payloads directly into geosynchronous orbit (~35,786 x ~35,786 km). At GSO, satellites orbit at the same speed as Earth spins, allowing them to indefinitely hover over the same region of the planet, making it useful for Earth observation, surveillance, and communications. Finally, the Falcon upper stage will attempt to complete one last burn to send itself into a graveyard orbit just above GSO, where it will eventually run out of power and lose control.
It will take around 6-8 hours after liftoff before SpaceX or the USSF can confirm if the mission was a success. Rewatch SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch and dual booster landing here.
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.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
