News
SpaceX’s third Falcon Heavy launch on track as custom booster aces static fire
SpaceX has successfully completed a static fire of its newest Falcon Heavy center core, a sign that the most challenging hardware is firmly on track for a late-June launch target.
Currently penciled in for June 22nd, Falcon Heavy’s third launch is of great interest to both SpaceX and its customer, the US Air Force. Most of the two-dozen payloads manifested on the mission are admittedly unaffiliated with the US military. However, the rideshare – known as Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) – was acquired by the USAF for the branch to closely evaluate and certify SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket for critical military launches. The potential upsides of a successful demonstration and evaluation are numerous for both entities and would likely trigger additional positive offshoots.
The Center Core experience
Beyond the general contractual aspects of STP-2, the mission is significant because it will use the third Falcon Heavy center core and second Block 5 variant to be built and launched by SpaceX. Of the technical issues that complicated and delayed SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy development, most can probably be traced back to the rocket’s center core, practically a clean-slate redesign relative to a ‘normal’ Falcon 9 booster.
Most of that work centered around the extreme mechanical loads the center core would have to survive when pulling or being pulled by Falcon Heavy’s two side boosters. Not only would the center core have to survive at least two times as much stress as a Falcon 9 booster, but that stress would be exerted in ways that Falcon 9 boosters simply weren’t meant to experience, let alone survive. After years of work, SpaceX arrived at a design that dumped almost all of that added complexity squarely on the center core and the center core alone. The side boosters would need to use nosecones instead of interstages and have custom attachment points installed on their octawebs and noses, but they would otherwise be unmodified Falcon 9 boosters.
On top of that, SpaceX’s Falcon upper stage and payload fairing would require no major modifications to support Falcon Heavy missions. On the opposite hand, the center core would require extensive rework to safely survive the trials of launch, let alone do so in a fashion compatible with booster recovery and reuse. Per the landing photos above, it’s difficult to tell a Falcon Heavy center core apart from a normal Falcon 9 booster, but the small visible changes are just the tips of several icebergs. Aside from a slight indication that the center core’s aluminum alloy tank walls are significantly thicker (they are), center cores feature a variety of unique mechanisms on their octawebs and interstages. All are involved in the tasks of locking all three boosters together, transferring side booster thrust to the center core, and mechanically separating the side boosters from the center core a few minutes after launch.
Underneath those mechanistic protuberances are the structural optimizations needed for a center core to survive the ordeal of launch. In short, to solve for those new loads, SpaceX wound up building a new rocket. Designing and building a new rocket – especially one as complex as Falcon Heavy’s center core – is immensely challenging, expensive, and time-consuming, particularly for the first few built. Like most complex products, building the first two Falcon Heavy center cores was probably no different. To make things worse, boosters 1 and 2 were based on totally different versions of Falcon 9 (Block 3 vs. Block 5), requiring even more work to further redesign and requalify the modified rocket.
This is where the center core assigned to Falcon Heavy Flight 3 and pictured above comes into play. Built just a few months apart from B1055, the first finished Falcon Heavy Block 5 center core, the newest center core – likely B1057 – is also the first to be built with the same design and manufacturing processes used on its predecessor. In other words, SpaceX can at long last begin serial production of Falcon Heavy center cores, allowing its engineering, production, test, and launch staff to finally get far more accustomed to the unique hardware.
Given Falcon Heavy’s healthy and growing manifest of 5-6 launches, SpaceX will probably need to build several additional Block 5 center cores over the next several years, hopefully resulting in a more refined flow for production, testing, and refurbishment. B1057 will be an excellent candidate for the first reused Falcon Heavy center core thanks to STP-2’s lightweight nature and an extremely gentle landing trajectory. With respect to Flight 3’s schedule, Crew Dragon’s April 20th explosion means that Falcon Heavy will have Pad 39A all to itself for many months to come. Truly the epitome of bittersweet, no doubt, but it does improve the odds that Falcon Heavy’s June 22nd STP-2 launch target will hold.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
