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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
