News
SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy booster arrives in Florida as launch #2 closes in
SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy side booster has made its way from Texas to Florida after completing a successful static fire acceptance test at the company’s McGregor complex, paving the way for the third and final booster – currently vertical on McGregor’s test stand – to complete its own round of tests and head East.
Once the third and most important booster – known as the center core – arrives at SpaceX’s Florida launch facilities, all three of the next Falcon Heavy’s boosters will be ready to head into the integration stage, culminating in an integrated static fire prior to the second launch ever of SpaceX’s flagship super-heavy-lift rocket.
A Texas pilot happened to fly by SpaceX’s McGregor facilities on January 11th, catching a live glimpse of a Merlin Vacuum (MVac) or second stage static fire test, as well a Falcon booster – perhaps Falcon Heavy’s next center core – vertical on the facility’s booster static fire stand. While it has not yet been visually confirmed as the next Falcon Heavy center core, a booster traveling through the Waco, Texas area to McGregor was spotted with protuberances that are not normally seen on regular Falcon 9 boosters and happened to be in the right place for FH-specific hardware.
-
- A booster – likely the next Falcon Heavy center core – was vertical at McGregor’s S1 static fire stand. (Instagram /u/tcryguy)
-
- An MVac or Falcon 9 S2 performs a static fire at McGregor. (Instagram /u/tcryguy)
There is also a case to be made that – per the fact that the first two side boosters have been built, shipped, tested, and delivered back-to-back – SpaceX chose to consecutively manufacture all hardware needed for the second Falcon Heavy instead of producing one or a few single-stick Falcon 9 boosters in between, which the appearance of a center core-like rocket in Texas certainly helps corroborate. While Falcon Heavy side boosters are effectively just Falcon 9 boosters with a few additional attachments and nose cones, currently scheduling indicates that SpaceX may attempt to rapidly turn all three Falcon Heavy Flight 2 boosters around perhaps just 30-60 days after their first launch. Otherwise, once the rocket’s 2019 launches have been completed, both side boosters can be converted back into Falcon 9 boosters and thus reenter SpaceX’s active fleet of flight-proven rockets.
Falcon Heavy’s center core, however, is dramatically different than a regular Falcon 9 booster, owing to the fact that it needs to essentially support triple the thrust and mechanical stresses as single-stick launches. The rocket’s design works to improve payload performance by using the two side cores to boost the center core and leave it with far more propellant left over than Falcon 9 would during a comparable launch profile, roughly equivalent to a three-person bike where only two people are pedaling hard. During a Falcon Heavy launch, side boosters thus separate a solid 30-60 seconds before the center core parts ways with the upper stage and payload.
-
- A diagram from a recent SpaceX document offers an idea of what Falcon Heavy Block 5 will look like. (SpaceX)
-
- The first Falcon Heavy, seen here fully integrated aside from its payload fairing. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy just prior to its launch debut, February 2018. (Tom Cross)
-
- SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy prepares for the huge rocket’s inaugural launch. (SpaceX)
-
- LZ-1 and LZ-2, circa February 2018. (SpaceX)
Thanks to its significant differences, it’s highly unlikely – if not impossible – for a Falcon Heavy center core to launch a regular Falcon 9 mission. As such, once Falcon Heavy’s 2019 launches are completed, the center core will most likely be processed, refurbished, and then stored until the next Falcon Heavy payload is ready to go, at which point Falcon 9 boosters would be converted into Heavy side cores. Given that the Block 5 upgrade is designed to allow Falcon boosters to perform as many as 10 launches with minimal to no refurbishment and 100+ with regular repairs and maintenance, it’s entirely possible that a single Falcon Heavy center core could theoretically support all possible future launches of the rocket.
In reality, customers like the USAF and NASA will probably request new hardware for foreseeable Falcon Heavy launches, most of which would likely be extremely expensive flagship satellites (AFSPC-52) or interplanetary spacecraft (Europa Clipper).
Fans of @SpaceX will be interested to note that the government is now taking very seriously the possibility of flying Clipper on the Falcon Heavy.
— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) December 3, 2018
Falcon Heavy’s next two launches are planned as early as March (a large communications satellite called Arabsat 6A) and April (an experimental USAF launch called STP-2 with two dozen separate payloads). With two side boosters already in Florida, those dates are now serious possibilities, and the center core’s arrival will be the telltale sign that Falcon Heavy’s second launch ever is imminent.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Tesla Diner is throwing a birthday party with a Franz-signed special treat
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
