News
SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch in three years eyes late-October liftoff
For the second time in 2022, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket has a firm launch date for the first time in more than three years.
Cursed by a seemingly relentless flood of delays impacting almost every one of the rocket’s payloads, Falcon Heavy made it within three or four months of ending its launch drought as recently as June 2022. At the time, the rocket was more or less ready to begin assembly, but NASA announced late that month that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and supplier Maxar had failed to finish qualifying software needed to power its Psyche spacecraft. Designed to journey to and enter orbit around the asteroid 16 Psyche, the complex trajectory required to reach it constrained the mission to a launch window sometime between August and October.
When JPL and Maxar were unable to properly test the spacecraft’s software in time for that window, they were forced to stand down and wait until the next earliest window, which begins in July 2023. That left Falcon Heavy with three more possible payloads to launch in 2022, but all three were chronically delayed and there was little reason to believe that even one of them would be ready to launch before 2023. However, Falcon Heavy’s single most delayed payload appears to have made a breakthrough, giving the most powerful rocket currently in operation at least one more shot at a 2022 launch.
Continuing an excellent series of reports tracking Falcon Heavy’s never-ending US military payload delays, Spaceflight Now broke the news with an official statement from the US Space Force, which confirmed that an unspecified industry partner had finally resolved payload problems that have delayed the military’s USSF-44 mission by two years. More importantly, the USSF spokesperson revealed a specific target of October 28th.
The US military has repeatedly offered implausible launch targets for USSF-44 with little to no official explanation for the mission’s delays, making it reasonable to appraise any specific launch date much like a boy crying wolf. But this particular target, announced within the same month as its date, is a bit more believable on its own.
Thankfully, it’s not on its own. On October 7th, SpaceX sent out an email confirming that Falcon Heavy is scheduled to launch USSF-44 sometime in October and asking members of the media to register for press site access and remote camera setup opportunities. It’s possible that the rocket or USSF-44 satellites will run into issues and trigger additional delays, but a press accreditation email is about as close as one can get to a believable guarantee that a secretive US military payload is on track for a SpaceX launch scheduled more than a week or so in the future.
The mission’s next major step forward will be the assembly of Falcon Heavy inside SpaceX’s main hangar at its NASA Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad. Photos SpaceX shared last month and earlier this month of preparations for Crew-5, Falcon 9’s eighth successful astronaut launch, show that at least two of the four main stages that make up Falcon Heavy are already inside that hangar. One of two new Falcon Heavy side boosters was clearly spotted on September 30th.
The rocket’s expendable upper stage was also clearly visible in a September 23rd photo. Ordinarily, Falcon upper stages are nearly indistinguishable from each other, but the upper stage stored behind the Crew-5 upper stage in the foreground features a unique grey band around the bottom of its airframe. In July 2019, SpaceX tested another Falcon 9 upper stage with the same grey band, which a spokesperson explained was meant to improve the rocket’s longevity in orbit.
Long orbital coasts of six or more hours are necessary for some of the most challenging launch trajectories. Direct-to-geostationary launches are the most common type of mission to require long coast capabilities and are often demanded by the US military. The grey band’s purpose is to increase the amount of heating absorbed from sunlight to warm the liquid kerosene (RP-1) fuel contained within that part of the rocket. When it gets too cold, kerosene – which freezes at a much higher temperature than Falcon’s liquid oxygen oxidizer – becomes viscous and slush-like before it freezes solid. If ingested, slushy fuel would likely prevent ignition or destroy the upper stage’s Merlin engine.
USSF-44 will be SpaceX’s first direct geostationary launch attempt, explaining why the grey band has reappeared more than three years after its first test. Coincidentally, Falcon Heavy’s third and latest launch occurred in June 2019, just one month before that upper stage test. 40 months later, the rocket might finally launch again, and it will do so by attempting what is likely SpaceX’s most difficult customer mission to date. To enable the high performance required for the mission, USSF-44 will also intentionally expend a Falcon Heavy booster for the first time. The rocket’s two new side boosters will boost back to Florida and land side by side at LZ-1 and LZ-2, but its new center core will be expended after a single flight.
SpaceX has already finished converting Pad 39A’s mobile transporter/erector, which was previously set up for single-core Falcon 9 rockets. The T/E will eventually roll inside the pad’s integration hangar, confirming that Falcon Heavy has been fully assembled and is about to be installed on the structure. The rocket will then be rolled out to the pad and brought vertical for static fire testing, a process that will likely begin at least a week before the current October 28th launch target.
If testing is successful, Falcon Heavy will return to the hangar, have its fairing and USSF-44 payload installed, and roll out to the pad one last time. Stay tuned for updates on that ongoing process.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
