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.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
