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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
