News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket back in action after a three-year hiatus
Update: The US Space Systems Command says that SpaceX’s first direct launch to geosynchronous orbit was a “simply outstanding” success, safely deploying several satellites more than 36,000 kilometers (~22,400 mi) above the Earth’s surface.
The success of the US Space Force’s USSF-44 mission means that SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket is now one of just a handful of operational rockets in the world that has demonstrated the ability to launch satellites directly to geosynchronous orbit. More importantly, it’s one of just three US rockets with that established capability. The other two rockets – ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV – will cease to be available for US military missions by the end of 2023, meaning that Falcon Heavy may briefly become the only rocket in the world able to launch certain US military missions until ULA’s next-generation Vulcan rocket is ready to prove itself.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy has continued a streak of successful dual-booster landings during its first attempted launch directly to geosynchronous orbit, a mission that was also the rocket’s first launch in more than three years.
Known as USSF-44 and initially scheduled to launch more than two years ago, the US Space Force mission finally lifted off on November 1st, 2022 after relentless payload delays. By mid-2021, the hardware required for SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch since June 2019 – mainly three new first-stage boosters – had finished qualification testing and been shipped to Florida in anticipation of a late-2021 or early-2022 launch. That launch never came.
Only in November 2022 did most or all of USSF-44’s payloads finally come together, resulting in a gap of more than 40 months between Falcon Heavy launches as practically every other payload assigned to the rocket in the interim experience their own significant delays. Regardless, on November 1st, Falcon Heavy lifted off for the fourth time and performed flawlessly for the nine minutes the US Space Force allowed SpaceX’s webcast to continue.
Over the course of those nine minutes, Falcon Heavy’s twin side boosters – both flying for the first time – helped send the rest of the rocket on its way to space before separating from the center core, upper stage, and payload to boost back towards the Florida coast. Less than eight minutes after liftoff, they safely touched down seconds apart at SpaceX’s LZ-1 and LZ-2 landing zones. Lacking grid fins or landing legs, Falcon Heavy’s intentionally-expendable center core (middle booster) continued burning for another 90 seconds and only separated from the upper stage after reaching a speed of almost four kilometers per second (8,900 mph) – a new record for a SpaceX rocket booster.
The center core, B1066, was likely obliterated when it reentered Earth’s atmosphere traveling at approximately 50% of orbital velocity. Side boosters B1064 and B1065, however, will be rapidly refurbished for a “future US Space Force mission” that SpaceX – perhaps incorrectly – says could follow USSF-44 as early as “later this year.” Unless SpaceX has received an additional USSF launch contract in secret, the company’s next USSF mission appears to be USSF-67, which the US Space Systems Command reported could launch as early as January 2023 in their latest press release [PDF]. USSF-44 and USSF-67 are technically set to launch in the same US fiscal year but not the same calendar year.
USSF-44 is SpaceX’s first direct geosynchronous launch, meaning that Falcon Heavy is attempting to deliver the US military’s payloads to a circular geosynchronous orbit (GEO) approximately 36,000 kilometers (~22,400 mi) above Earth’s surface. “Geosynchronous” refers to the fact that a spacecraft’s orbital velocity matches Earth’s rotational velocity at that altitude, making it a popular destination for communications and Earth observation satellites that want to observe the same region of Earth all the time. Ordinarily, to simplify the rocket’s job, most GEO-bound satellites are launched into an elliptical geosynchronous or geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and use their own propulsion to circularize that ellipse.
On a direct-to-GEO launch, the rocket does almost all of the work. After reaching a parking orbit in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Falcon Heavy’s upper stage likely completed a second burn to geosynchronous transfer orbit. Then, while conducting a complex ballet of thermal management and tank pressure maintenance to prevent all of its cryogenic liquid oxygen (LOx) from boiling into gas and its refined kerosene (RP-1) from freezing into an unusable slush, the upper stage must coast ‘uphill’ for around five or six hours.
Over that journey from an altitude of about 300 kilometers to 36,000 kilometers, in addition to the above tasks, the upper stage must also survive passes through both of Earth’s radiation belts. At apogee, Falcon S2 must reignite its Merlin Vacuum engine for around one or two minutes to reach a circular geosynchronous orbit. Payload deployment will follow and could last anywhere from a few minutes to an hour. Finally, to be a dutiful space tenant, Falcon’s upper stage must complete at least one or two more burns to reach its final destination: a graveyard orbit a few hundred kilometers above GEO.
SpaceX’s third Falcon Heavy launch, a US Air Force mission called STP-2, was a partial dry-run of direct-to-GEO launch – albeit in low Earth orbit (LEO) instead of LEO, GTO, and GEO. During STP-2, Falcon Heavy’s upper stage completed four successful burns in three and a half hours. USSF-44 is significantly more challenging by most measures but not entirely outside of SpaceX’s range of experience. In addition to STP-2, Falcon 9 upper stages have conducted a few long-duration coast tests after completing unrelated primary missions.
In statements made to Spaceflight Now, the US Space Systems Command said that USSF-44’s two main payloads are a pair of propulsive kick stages and payload platforms, one – LDPE-2 – supplied by Northrop Grumman and the other – the “Shepherd Demonstration” – a mystery. LDPE-2 will reportedly carry three hosted payloads and deploy three rideshare satellites: likely two Lockheed Martin LINUSS-A cubesats and Millenium Space Systems’ TETRA-1. All three rideshare satellites are designed to demonstrate various new technologies, ranging from propulsion systems to avionics.
Rewatch SpaceX’s USSF-44 Falcon Heavy launch here.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
