News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy testing delayed after government shutdown
As the U.S. Senate’s majority party searches for ten additional votes in order to end a federal government shutdown that began late Saturday, all “non-essential” activities at the country’s numerous government-operated space launch facilities have ground to an immediate halt and will remain in limbo until a funding bill compromise is hammered out.
While SpaceX is a wholly private space launch company, it relies almost unilaterally upon launch support and range expertise provided by NASA and the US Air Force, both in Cape Canaveral, FL and Vandenberg, CA. Sadly, the Air Force personnel SpaceX depend upon to conduct launches, static fires, and other ignition tests at its launch pads are not considered “essential” under regulations that prevent the federal government from coming to a complete halt in the event of a funding-related shutdown.
Unfortunately, a budget agreement wasn't reached, resulting in a gov't shutdown. This will unfortunately disrupt the lives and operations here at Patrick AFB. Go to https://t.co/yvmNBH1LMy for info on the current shutdown, impact on base resources, & financial resource options.
— Space Launch Delta 45 (@SLDelta45) January 20, 2018
SpaceX did appear to complete the most thorough round of Falcon Heavy testing yet late Saturday evening, the US Senate’s failure to either pass a continuing resolution or a new funding bill for the fiscal year led to a complete federal government shutdown soon after. As a result, nearly all of the US Air Force’s 45th Space Wing – a crucial backbone of East coast range and launch operations – was furloughed indefinitely, pending new funding from Congress. SpaceX had previously requested a new static fire date for Falcon Heavy on Monday, January 22 (today), a date that is now clearly going to move right for at least as long as the government lacks funding for basic launch operations.
Thankfully, activities like the extensive propellant loading tests that occurred on Saturday night do not technically require range support, so long as no engine ignition or static fire components are included. In the event of a catastrophic failure, the government-run range would be tasked with ensuring the safety of those in the vicinity and coordinating the emergency response that would immediately follow. This policy is brought somewhat into question by the failure of Amos-6 – although that Falcon 9 was being prepared for a static fire test, its highly-destructive failure is understood to have occurred at least five or more minutes before the planned point of ignition. Nevertheless, SpaceX will be able to continue some level of testing with Falcon Heavy, if needed.
Elsewhere, instability
While SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy has undoubtedly garnered magnitudes more eyeballs than the company’s Falcon 9 activities, the government shutdown could be far more consequential for SpaceX’s customers if it cannot be halted within a handful of days. A federal shutdown lasting several days is a hugely disruptive and damaging event on its own, lack of range support on the East coast could quickly begin to eat into SpaceX’s GovSat-1 preparations, the launch of which is targeting NET late January/January 30. For GovSat-1’s flight-proven booster, a static fire at the launch site is unlikely to be bypassed (SpaceX has never skipped a prelaunch static fire), and would typically occur no fewer than four or five days before launch. As a result, in the somewhat unlikely event that the shutdown stretches beyond the next several days, SpaceX customers SES and GovSat could see their launch delayed, an event that would likely bring financial consequences to the public-private satellite venture.
Looking slightly farther into the future, SpaceX’s flight-proven launch of PAZ and two of its own prototype communications satellites is just about two weeks away from its own static fire test, this time at the West Coast’s Vandenberg Air Force Base. Such an extended shutdown would be utterly unprecedented, but if 2017 and 2018 have done anything at all, they’ve tempered tendencies towards knee-jerk claims of “that’ll never happen!”
-
- A panorama of LC-39A in November 2017. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch complex, SLC-4E, depends upon an Air Force range to operate. (SpaceX)
-
- LC-40, located in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, is SpaceX’s second pad. (Tom Cross)
Here’s to hoping that Congress can get their act together and return to those they represent the bare minimum of federal stability, for both federal employees and those that depend upon them.
Update: After a solid two days of shutdown, the Senate has apparently reached an agreement to pass a continuing resolution that will maintain funding for another three weeks, after which a new FY2018 budget must be passed to avoid another shutdown. While this thankfully means that the impact to the Space Coast and the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing should be relatively small, I have left my above thoughts on the potential impacts of a longer shutdown untouched for posterity.
Senate has voted on an amended bill to fund U.S. government for 3 weeks. Bill now heads back to the House for debate & vote. If it passes the House without changes, the President then needs to sign it into law. Once all those things happen, the government reopens. Then… 1/2
— Chris G (@ChrisG_SpX) January 22, 2018
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
