News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launches delayed by military satellite issues
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launches will have to wait several more months after issues unrelated to the rocket forced the US military to delay two upcoming missions.
In an official email sent to outlet Via Satellite on May 19th, the director of the US Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) revealed that the Space Force’s first SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch – known as USSF-44 – was pushed from July to October 2021 “to accommodate payload readiness.” Translated, the common military euphemism likely implies that the mission’s main geostationary satellite payload ran into significant delays in the last year or so and may have also been responsible for an earlier launch delay from April to July 2021.
Possibly connected to USSF-52’s delays, US SMC Colonel Robert Bongiovi indicated in a separate medium that SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch and second mission for the US Space Force had also been hit by delays, originally slipping from June to October 2021 and now from October 2021 to sometime in January 2022.
That leaves just one Falcon Heavy launch now scheduled for 2021. Set to debut two new recoverable side boosters and the first intentionally expendable center core, all Falcon Heavy USSF-44 hardware was likely ready to go at SpaceX’s Florida launch facilities by April. Unfortunately, SpaceX – seemingly on time or only slightly behind schedule for Q2 2021 launch – will now have to sit on that Falcon Heavy hardware for the better part of half a year.
The latest of at least four new Falcon Heavy boosters, expendable Falcon Heavy center core B1066 wrapped up testing at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas development facilities in March and likely shipped to Florida a few weeks later. B1066 followed Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064 and B1065, which completed their own static fire acceptance testing in Texas in late 2020 and early 2021. Given that B1066 will be intentionally expended after its first flight, at least one other Falcon Heavy center core (and probably two or more) is also in work to support SpaceX’s USSF-52 launch sometime next year.
That second new center core – likely B1068 or B1069 – has yet to ship from SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California factory to Texas. If the company was in any rush, significant USSF-44 and USSF-52 payload delays have removed practically all production schedule pressure, giving SpaceX at least 3-5 extra months to test and ship any incomplete boosters, upper stages, or fairings for both missions and prepare for several others.
Barring major delays, SpaceX now has as many as five Falcon Heavy launches scheduled in 2022. USSF-52 is likely up first early in the year, followed by ViaSat’s second ViaSat-3 launch as early as Q1. The rocket is then firmly scheduled to launch NASA’s Psyche asteroid exploration mission in August 2022 and the Space Force’s geostationary USSF-67 satellite(s) in Q4. Finally, one of Inmarsat’s two next-generation I-6 satellites could also launch on Falcon Heavy sometime in 2022, though a specific schedule has yet to be set.
All told, Falcon Heavy has an extremely busy future ahead despite what is now likely to be a more than 28-month gap between the rocket’s third and fourth launch.
News
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
News
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.