News
SpaceX fires Falcon Heavy’s 27 booster engines ahead of “most difficult launch ever”
For the third time ever, SpaceX has successfully performed a critical static-fire test of an integrated Falcon Heavy, briefly igniting all 27 of its Merlin 1D engines to verify the health and readiness of the rocket.
Per SpaceX’s official confirmation, a “quick-look” inspection of static fire telemetry has indicated that the company’s Falcon Heavy rocket is ready for its second launch in less than three months, a milestone that could also allow both flight-proven side boosters to tie SpaceX’s own record for booster turnaround. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is now scheduled to launch the US Air Force’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission no earlier than 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the mission will unequivocally be the company’s “most difficult launch ever”.
Coincidentally, on top of being Falcon Heavy’s first scheduled night launch, STP-2 has now also marked the massive rocket’s first nighttime static fire. During this critical test, Falcon Heavy briefly ignites all 27 of its three boosters’ Merlin 1Ds and throttles the engines up to full thrust, much like airliners sometimes set their brakes and throttle up before attempting to take off. The difference between Falcon Heavy and passenger aircraft is nevertheless rather significant, given that Falcon Heavy produces ~15x the thrust of an A380 – the world’s most powerful mass-produced passenger aircraft – at liftoff: 22,820 kN (5.1M lbf) to the massive jet’s meager 1,440 kN (0.3M lbf).
Despite all of that thrust, Falcon Heavy is held down during static fire by eight accurately-named hold-down clamps, themselves a part of a massive transport/erector, which is itself anchored directly to Pad 39A’s concrete foundation. In short, Falcon Heavy (and especially Falcon 9) is not going anywhere until those hold-down clamps are explicitly released. Thanks to SpaceX’s avoidance of the solid rocket boosters used by almost every other modern launch vehicle, Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets can abort at any point prior to clamp release, offering a uniquely broad abort capability.
As such, not only does SpaceX’s dedicated pre-launch static fire fully test the rocket’s health, but the same procedure is essentially repeated in the seconds before clamp release during an actual orbital launch attempt. If at any point Falcon 9’s autonomous onboard computer decides that it doesn’t like any of the thousands of channels of telemetry it’s constantly analyzing, it can command an engine shutdown and total launch abort even if all first stage engines have already ignited and reached full thrust. If routine McGregor, TX acceptance testing – also involving a full static fire – is accounted for, every single Falcon 9 booster technically completes three fully-integrated static fires before its inaugural liftoff. Falcon Heavy is slightly different, as each booster is independent test-fired in Texas but the integrated rocket can only perform static fires at Pad 39A.
After those three critical tests, flight-proven Falcon boosters are subjected to the less stringent few-second static fires SpaceX performs at the launch pad 3-7 days before a given launch. With Falcon Heavy Flight 3, the rocket’s center core, upper stage, and payload fairing are all brand new, fresh from either SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory or McGregor acceptance testing. However, both side cores – Block 5 boosters B1052 and B1053 – are flight-proven, having successfully completed their first launches and landings on April 11th, less than 70 days ago.
Set by regular old Falcon 9 boosters, SpaceX’s current record for booster turnaround time (time between two launches) is 71 days (set in June 2018), while the Block 5 upgrade’s record stands at 74 days (set in October 2018). If Falcon Heavy’s STP-2 launch holds strong on June 24th, B1052 and B1053 will simultaneously tie SpaceX’s Block 5 turnaround record. This would be accomplished despite the added pressure from the US Air Force’s decision to use STP-2 as a sort of dress rehearsal for certifying all flight-proven commercial rockets, an honor (and burden) that likely added extra work, oversight, and scrutiny to the process of refurbishing and relaunching B1052 and B1053.
“[T]he US Air Force has decided that STP-2 presents an excellent opportunity to begin the process of certifying flight-proven SpaceX rockets for military launches. The STP-2-related work is more of a preliminary effort for the USAF to actually figure out how to certify flight-proven commercial rockets, but it will still be the first time a dedicated US military mission has flown on a flight-proven launch vehicle. Down the road, the processes set in place thanks – in part – to STP-2 and Falcon Heavy may also apply to aspirational rockets like Blue Origin’s New Glenn and ULA’s “SMART” proposal for Vulcan reuse.”
— Teslarati.com, 06/16/2019
In a last-second surprise, SpaceX updated Falcon Heavy center core B1057’s planned drone ship landing site from a brief 40 km (25 mi) to more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida. SpaceX set its current record for recovery distance less than three months ago during Falcon Heavy’s commercial launch debut, in which Block 5 center core B1055 landed nearly 970 km (600 mi) offshore on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). If all goes well, B1057 – the second finished Block 5 center core – will absolutely crush its predecessor’s record, implying that the booster will likely be subjected to SpaceX’s most difficult reentry and recovery yet.
For more on what CEO Elon Musk describes as “[SpaceX’s] most difficult launch ever”, check out these previous articles on an unexpected ultra-fast booster reentry and the extraordinary challenge facing Falcon upper stage.
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
