Connect with us
Falcon Heavy STP-2. Falcon Heavy STP-2.

News

SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket still on track for two launches this year

Published

on

Spaceflight Now reports that SpaceX’s next two Falcon Heavy rockets – both under contract with the US military – are scheduled to launch as early as July and October 2021.

Known as USSF-44 and USSF-52, both missions will see Falcon Heavy rockets launch unknown US military satellites – one directly to a circular geostationary orbit (GEO) and the other to an elliptical geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). The nature and purpose of those satellites will likely remain a mystery up to and after both launches, though their target and destination orbits may allow independent satellite tracking fans to loosely speculate, at minimum.

(KFLY News 10)
SpaceX has shipped all three new Falcon Heavy boosters from its Hawthorne factory, one of which is already in Florida. (Jason Miller)

SpaceX has already shipped all three of USSF-44’s new Falcon Heavy boosters from its Hawthorne, California factory to McGregor, Texas test facilities. At least one of those boosters has also completed static fire acceptance testing in Texas and been delivered to SpaceX’s Florida facilities. Outfitted with a telltale nosecone, that side booster will likely be joined by its twin within the next few weeks – if it hasn’t already.

According to a US military spokesperson that responded to Spaceflight Now’s inquiries, Falcon Heavy’s USSF-44 launch has apparently slipped from a target of “late spring” to no earlier than (NET) July 2021 – a delay of a few weeks to one or two months. Although SpaceX still has two twice-flown Falcon Heavy Block 5 side boosters on hand from the rocket’s back-to-back April and June 2019 launches, the US military requested all new boosters for USSF-44.

Notably, the same official revealed that SpaceX and the US military are targeting October 2021 for Falcon Heavy’s USSF-52, just three months after USSF-44. USSF-44 will be Falcon Heavy’s first launch in an expendable-center-core configuration, meaning that one of the rocket’s three boosters will be intentionally expended. That means that SpaceX will need to complete, test, and deliver another new Falcon Heavy center core before USSF-52 can launch.

SpaceX has spent at least 2-3 months testing each new Falcon booster in McGregor over the last year or so, meaning that it would require a major boost in processing cadence to deliver six new boosters in just 6-8 months. In other words, barring several months of delays, it’s likely that SpaceX and the USSF are currently planning for USSF-52 under the assumption that it will reuse the Falcon Heavy side boosters from USSF-44 or from the rocket’s second and third launches.

Advertisement
Mission complete! Taken by Airmen Alex Preisser, this photo shows B1052 and B1053 shortly after coming to a rest at SpaceX's Landing Zones.
Twice-flown Falcon Heavy side boosters B1052 and B1053 disappeared into storage hangers in June 2019 and haven’t been seen since. (USAF – Alex Preisser)

Regardless, tentative July and October launch targets make it more likely than not that SpaceX will be able to launch Falcon Heavy twice this year even if booster production, testing, or processing take a bit longer than expected and both missions run into minor delays on the launch pad. USSF-44 will be Falcon Heavy’s first launch in more than two years, a lengthy delay between flights that appears to be unlikely to happen again as SpaceX continues to fill the rocket’s manifest with no fewer than eight launches between now and the end of 2024.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one

Published

on

Justin Pacheco, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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.

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Tesla Full Self-Driving gets first-ever European approval

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.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla teases greater Grok FSD integration and ‘Banish’ feature ‘in about 3 months’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

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:

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.

Continue Reading