News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy side booster arrives at Texas test facilities
NASASpaceflight.com reports that the first new booster for SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch has arrived at the company’s McGregor, Texas test facilities.
The canonical sign that SpaceX is rapidly progressing towards its next Falcon Heavy launch, the mission – set to carry the US military’s US Space Force 44 (USSF-44) satellite(s) directly to geostationary orbit (GEO) – requires all new boosters. For SpaceX, barring a major surprise in the next five months, USSF-44 will be the first operational direct-to-GEO launch in the company’s history – a milestone years and multiple test flights in the making.
US military officials have begun to at least vaguely support the idea of flying payloads on flight-proven SpaceX rockets but it looks to be a long uphill battle ahead of the company. It took almost half a decade and four-dozen successful booster landings for the US Air Force to even allow SpaceX to attempt to land a Falcon 9 booster after an operational military launch. As a result, the company will likely be building new rockets for its military launches for the indefinite future – Falcon Heavy and its three boosters included.
The photo at the top of this article shows a largely identical Falcon Heavy Block 5 side booster – either B1052 or B1053 – during a late-2018 static fire acceptance test campaign in McGregor, Texas.
Based on NASASpaceflight.com’s aerial photos of the latest rocket to arrive in McGregor, Texas, one would assume that SpaceX was simply testing a new Falcon 9 first stage. Notably, the booster appears to have a Falcon 9 interstage installed, whereas Falcon Heavy side boosters have historically been tested with nosecones installed. However, by analyzing the layout of decals visible on its exterior, author Thomas Burghardt discovered that the booster – believed to be B1064 – is likely the first of two new Falcon Heavy side boosters needed for USSF-44.
For unknown reasons, SpaceX has outfitted, transported, and prepared B1064 for acceptance testing with a years-old interstage installed, effectively making it a Falcon Heavy side booster in Falcon 9 clothing (sans nosecone).
In its current configuration, the process of manufacturing three new Falcon Heavy boosters at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory takes at least half a year from the start of tank welding to shipment. After each booster is completed, it must ship to McGregor, Texas for at least 4-6 weeks to undergo acceptance tests, including at least one wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire. In other words, if the first of three new Falcon Heavy Block 5 boosters has just arrived in McGregor, SpaceX likely has two or three months of work to go before the entire USSF-44 rocket is on site at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center.
Just two weeks ago, a US military official revealed that SpaceX’s USSF-44 Falcon Heavy launch date had slipped from late-2020 (likely November or December) to no earlier than (NET) February 28th, 2021. The cause of the delay is unknown but either way, it should give SpaceX two full months to process Falcon Heavy Flight 4 hardware in Florida (or several weeks of margin wherever needed). After USSF-44, SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch – USSF-52; also expected to fly on all-new boosters – was scheduled to launch NET “early 2021” before the preceding mission’s delay was announced. To achieve that schedule, SpaceX will likely be building and testing new Falcon Heavy boosters – and Falcon Heavy boosters only – from mid-2020 to at least Q1 2021.
On the plus side, as NASASpaceflight.com noted, if SpaceX manages to recover all USSF-44 and USSF-52 boosters, it will quickly find itself with a fleet of six side boosters and two center cores.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
