News
SpaceX begins Falcon Heavy booster deliveries for first launch in two years
SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy rocket launch in almost two years has entered the final stages of preparations – flight hardware acceptance testing, delivery, and assembly.
Comprised of five major elements, the vast majority of the challenges of building and launching Falcon Heavy come from the rocket’s three first-stage boosters – each more or less equivalent to a single-core Falcon 9 booster. Falcon Heavy’s twin side boosters are by far the most visually recognizable sign of that similar-but-different nature thanks to the need for aerodynamic nosecones instead of a Falcon booster’s normal interstage (a hollow cylinder).
While easily recognizable, the center core is the most technically Falcon Heavy-specific part of SpaceX’s partially-reusable heavy-lift rocket, requiring a unique airframe relative to side cores, which are essentially Falcon 9 boosters with a few major add-ons. It’s one of those Falcon Heavy side boosters that was spotted traveling by road from SpaceX’s test facilities to a Florida launch pad on Tuesday, January 26th.
For unknown reasons, although SpaceX currently has two reused Falcon Heavy side boosters that flew a second time on the US Air Force’s own STP-2 mission, the company has manufactured all-new boosters – likely at the US military’s request – for the rocket’s fourth launch. Rebadged from AFSPC-44 to USSF-44, that mission will see SpaceX attempt its first-ever direct-to-GEO launch, nominally launching a several-ton mystery satellite directly into geostationary orbit (GEO).
The main challenge of direct-to-GEO launches is the need for a given rocket’s upper stage to coast for hours in orbit and then reignite after that multi-hour coast period. The direct launch profile also demands more delta-V (propellant) than alternative transfer orbits (GTOs) – propellant that must be launched into orbit in addition to the customer’s payload. That requires the use of extremely large and/or efficient rockets, which is why SpaceX is launching USSF-44 with Falcon Heavy instead of a much cheaper and simpler Falcon 9.
Unlike all other direct-to-GEO launches in history, however, Falcon Heavy Flight 4 will (hopefully) mark the first time a rocket launches a payload into geostationary orbit while still recovering a large portion of its first stage. After liftoff, Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064 and B1065 will attempt the first-ever dual drone ship landing at sea, while the rocket’s custom center core will be intentionally expended. According to CEO Elon Musk, that sacrificial-center-core configuration theoretically allows Falcon Heavy to achieve ~90% of its expendable performance while still recovering two otherwise reusable boosters.
As of the first USSF-44 side booster’s appearance in Louisiana, at least one other booster (most likely the mission’s second side booster) has already been spotted at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas development facilities and may have already completed its own round of static fire acceptance testing. Given the three-month gap between the first USSF-44 side booster’s static fire and a side booster’s appearance in transport, there’s a distant possibility that the booster spotted on January 26th was the second of two side boosters to ship east, but that’s improbable given how much Falcon boosters stick out on the road.
Ultimately, assuming the second USSF-44 side booster’s static fire acceptance test went well, the only major Falcon Heavy-specific hardware SpaceX needs to ship from its Hawthorne, CA headquarters is center core B1066. An upper stage and payload fairing will also have to pass acceptance testing and head to Florida but both will likely be standard Falcon 9-issue hardware, minimizing small-batch uncertainty.
If SpaceX delivers B1066 to McGregor within the next week or two, the center core should be ready to ship to Florida by March or April, leaving SpaceX two or three months to integrate, static fire, and prepare Falcon Heavy for its fourth launch. According to the latest official information from the US military, USSF-44 is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) “late-spring 2021,” likely implying late-May or June.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
