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.
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
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 Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
