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.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
