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
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
