News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy flies a complex mission for the Air Force in launch video
SpaceX has gone to unique lengths for the third launch of its Falcon Heavy rocket and made an exhaustive webpage dedicated to the mission, reviewing its importance to SpaceX and the United States and discussing most of its 23 manifested spacecraft.
Known as the US Air Force’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission, Falcon Heavy Flight 3 will be a critical pathfinder for the US military’s systematic utilization of both Falcon Heavy and its flight-proven boosters.
The STP-2 mission will be among the most challenging launches in SpaceX history with four separate upper-stage engine burns, three separate deployment orbits, a final propulsive passivation maneuver and a total mission duration of over six hours. [It] will demonstrate the capabilities of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle and provide critical data supporting certification for future National Security Space Launch (NSSL) missions. In addition, [the USAF] will use this mission as a pathfinder for the [military’s systematic utilization of flight-proven] launch vehicle boosters.
SpaceX, April 2019
SpaceX offers a very effective summary of the various challenges presented by Falcon Heavy’s STP-2 mission and third launch. It’s as challenging as it is for one very specific and largely artificial reason. All the way back in 2012, the USAF contracted the launch to give SpaceX a low-risk opportunity to demonstrate specific capabilities the military branch requires before they certify a given rocket to launch high-value payloads. Originally intended to fly STP-2 in mid-2015, Falcon Heavy suffered almost five years of delays during its development, caused by a combination of unexpected technical difficulties and two catastrophic Falcon 9 failures in 2015 and 2016.
After spending the whole of 2017 gradually catching up on delayed customer launches, SpaceX successfully conducted Falcon Heavy’s launch debut on February 6th, 2018. Four months later, the Air Force announced that it had completed the SpaceX rocket’s preliminary certification and awarded the company a $130M launch contract for AFSPC-52, a classified military satellite. According to documents describing the mission, the satellite weighs approximately 6350 kg (~14,000 lb) and needs to be placed into a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) measuring 35,188km X 185km (21,850 mi X 115 mi).
Conveniently, Falcon Heavy’s commercial launch debut saw the massive rocket deliver the communications satellite Arabsat 6A – weighing ~6450 kg (~14,200 lb) – into an extremely high GTO, almost 90,000 km X 330 km (56,000 mi X 205 mi). In simpler terms, Falcon Heavy Flight 2 was an almost perfect demonstration that SpaceX is more than capable of successfully launching AFSPC-52, a milestone that could come as early as H2 2020.
The STP-2 mission should help to boost the US military’s confidence in Falcon Heavy even further. The mission is comprised of 23 separate satellites from a dozen or so different groups, ranging from a NOAA weather satellite constellation to a NASA-built atomic clock. The purpose of such a varied range of payloads is to have SpaceX’s Falcon upper stage (S2) place three separate sets into three distinctly different Earth orbits, a challenge that will require the rocket to ignite its Merlin Vacuum engine four times and survive in space for more than six hours.
SpaceX has been testing this critical long-coast technology since at least February 2018, when Falcon Heavy’s debut included a six-hour coast of the upper stage to send a Tesla Roadster on an Earth escape trajectory. SpaceX completed that test successfully and said Roadster is now orbiting the sun on a trajectory that regularly reaches beyond the orbit of Mars. SpaceX has continued to test the longevity of its universal Falcon upper stage, including a handful of on-orbit demonstrations after completing customer missions.
Aside from opening the door for new areas of competition in military launch procurement, successfully proving the long-coast capabilities of the Falcon upper stage will also mean that SpaceX can offer them commercially. Military launches often require long coasts in order to get spacecraft to their operating orbits as quickly as possible, typically involving an upper stage burning at the top of a transfer orbit to circularize said orbit. This capability can also be of significant value to non-government customers, however, as the faster a satellite can get to its operational orbit, the faster its owner can start using it to generate revenue. Traditionally, most commercial geostationary communications satellites are sent to transfer orbits, raising one end of the orbit (apogee) but leaving the low end (perigee) in low Earth orbit. Satellites then use their own propulsion systems to circularize their orbits before they can begin commercial operations.
It’s safe to assume that SpaceX is interested in commercially offering services like those above to make Falcon Heavy even more competitive with the likes of ULA’s Atlas/Delta/Vulcan rockets and Arianespace’s Ariane 5 and Ariane 6. The US military will almost certainly be the anchor customer, but a reliable upper stage with long-coast capabilities may one day allow Falcon Heavy to routinely launch commercial satellites directly into circular orbits or send flagship NASA spacecraft into deep space. But first, STP-2. According to Taiwan space agency NSPO, involved in the mission through their Formosat-7 constellation (also known as NOAA’s COSMIC-2), Falcon Heavy could launch STP-2 as early as June 22nd.
SpaceX’s dedicated STP-2 webpage can be viewed here.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.
The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.
A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”
Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.
This functionality will be there in about 3 months or so
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 18, 2026
Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.
This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.
The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.
Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:
Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says
It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.
Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.
Here’s an example of that from December:
🚨🏈 I am taking my parents and Fiancee to the @Ravens game next weekend and asked @Grok to help me route my @Tesla through a specific neighborhood to reach the correct Lot we will park in.
This is a great example of the new @grok nav integration with the Tesla Holiday Update: pic.twitter.com/rPp4I7q8Yv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.
We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’
