News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy rocket on track for early 2023 launch
Two weeks after SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch in three and a half years, the US Space Force says that the rocket is on track to launch again “early next year.”
Immediately before and after Falcon Heavy’s first operational launch for the US Space Force, the Space Systems Command confirmed that the massive SpaceX rocket’s next military launch – USSF-67 – was scheduled no earlier than January 2023. The military also confirmed that USSF-67 would reuse two of the three Falcon Heavy boosters that helped launch USSF-44 on November 1st.
Two weeks later, the US Space Force’s tone hasn’t changed, and the Space Systems Command remains confident that Falcon Heavy is on track to launch USSF-67 less than three months after USSF-44.
Assuming the lack of a schedule change is intentional rather than a matter of not checking with SpaceX or other US stakeholders, no change is a good sign. Since the last time the SSC reported that USSF-67 was on track to launch in January 2023, SpaceX successfully launched its fourth Falcon Heavy rocket. USSF-44 was the company’s first launch directly into a geosynchronous orbit ~36,000 kilometers (~22,300 mi) above Earth’s surface.
SpaceX successfully recovered both of Falcon Heavy’s ‘side cores’ and has likely had enough time to thoroughly inspect each booster and begin the refurbishment process. If data gathered from the launch, landing, or recovered boosters uncovered issues with Falcon Heavy’s performance during USSF-44, USSF-67 would almost certainly be delayed. The chances of a delay are magnified by the fact that USSF-67 can’t launch until two of USSF-44’s Falcon Heavy boosters are refurbished and declared ready for a second flight.
But it appears that even a gap of 40 months between Falcon Heavy launches wasn’t enough to make SpaceX falter – at least after working out some prelaunch kinks. SpaceX accomplished a similar feat – launching two Falcon Heavy rockets in less than three months with one pair of side boosters – on the rocket’s second and third launches in April and June 2019. The mission that reused Flight 2’s side boosters was for the US Air Force, so SpaceX and the military already have direct experience tackling those challenges.
In the three and a half years since, SpaceX has gained a huge amount of experience recovering and refurbishing Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters and slashed its record turnaround (the time between two launches of the same booster) from 74 days to 21 days. SpaceX should thus have no issue turning Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064 and B1065 around for a second launch in January 2023, around 60 to 91 after their debut.
While preparing one Falcon Heavy rocket to launch USSF-67 in January, SpaceX – at least according to customer ViaSat – may also be preparing another Falcon Heavy rocket to launch the first ViaSat-3 satellite the same month. Unlike the US Space Force, which recently shipped [PDF] one of USSF-67’s payloads to Florida, ViaSat has yet to ship its first next-generation satellite to the launch site and says that milestone is scheduled for December 2022. That makes a February or March launch much more likely, but ViaSat recently told shareholders that ViaSat-3 remains on track to launch “in the earliest part of” Q1 2023.
Combined, USSF-67 and ViaSat-3 are scheduled to reuse Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064, B1065, B1052, and B1053. Each will use a brand new center core: B1068 for ViaSat-3 and B1079 for USSF-67, according to Next Spaceflight. Like USSF-44, which was the first time SpaceX intentionally expended a Falcon Heavy booster, both new center cores are expected to be expended.
For several reasons, assembling and preparing Falcon Heavy for launch is significantly more time-consuming than Falcon 9, so there will likely be at least a two, three, or even four-week gap between Falcon Heavy’s next two launches. But as long as USSF-67 and ViaSat-3 are ready to fly during narrow windows in early and late January, it appears that SpaceX could launch two Falcon Heavy rockets in one calendar month.
SpaceX has as many as five Falcon Heavy launches scheduled in 2023 – a stark change after more than three years without a single flight.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla is pushing back against the unfair reporting of accidents involving its vehicles. Many media outlets were quick to jump to conclusions about a fatal accident involving a Tesla in Katy, Texas, that happened recently.
The driver of the vehicle, which slammed into a brick house and killed a woman inside, stated the car was operating on Autopilot. Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both challenged that claim, with Elluswamy revealing last night that the system was overridden by the driver, who pressed the accelerator pedal “all the way to 100%.”
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The car reached a speed of 73 MPH during the crash, Elluswamy detailed, and stated that the accelerator pedal was even pressed after the crash.
The story has been spread throughout the media with either incomplete or incorrect reporting, with some stories still not updated nearly 24 hours after Musk and Elluswamy posted answers about the crash on X.
The reporting has been a thorn in the side of Tesla for several years. Vehicle accidents involving Teslas are usually reported with the manufacturer’s name in the headline, while other companies are free of criticism when their cars are involved in accidents.
Here’s an example of that:
So you don’t report the vehicle’s make when it isn’t a Tesla, but you do report it when it is a Tesla?
The vehicle in your post above is a Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. pic.twitter.com/4WT3sZ2DHm— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 17, 2026
Many media outlets stated the car was in “self-driving mode” or “Autopilot mode” when the car crashed. The truth is, now that Tesla has chimed in, that the driver had manually overriden the system by pressing the accelerator. Elluswamy commented on the unfair reporting:
“This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might prevent them from using this technology that makes them safer.”
This blatantly irresponsible reporting does more harm to people than they realize.
Using Tesla self-driving is far safer than manual driving, and this was measured over 10B miles.
Planting such FUD in the minds of general public, who might not know the all the facts, might…
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
The damage these headlines do to Tesla and the self-driving car movement is unexplainable. Most people do not realize the safeguards that are in place with Tesla’s self-driving functions; many people who have used it know the car would never travel at that speed in a residential area, not even on the most aggressive “Mad Max” setting.
It is important to remember that Tesla Full Self-Driving is not autonomous, and the company never claimed it was. Drivers are still responsible for paying attention and remaining vigilant. They must be able to take over at all times.
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
