News
SpaceX’s first government Falcon Heavy launch aiming for “early 2019” per USAF
Linked to the rocket and mission through its own LightSail 2 solar sail satellite, The Planetary Society reports that the USAF and SpaceX are now targeting Falcon Heavy’s first launch for a government customer in “early 2019”.
Previously expected to launch around November 30th, just a month from today, it’s clear that SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy rocket has yet to approach flight readiness, likely marginalized by a more pressing focus on near-term Falcon 9 missions and Crew Dragon’s imminent flight debuts.
LightSail 2 launch pushed to early 2019
An Air Force official says an ‘initial launch capability’ is being reassessed: https://t.co/QYA6NFPP1I pic.twitter.com/RJclLvcbSs
— Planetary Society (@exploreplanets) October 29, 2018
According to Planetary Society, a USAF official provided an update – per the group’s involvement in its STP-2 rideshare launch – stating that its “initial launch capability” was being reassessed, essentially a roundabout way of saying “A new launch date is being determined”. Reasons for the multitude of delays since Falcon Heavy’s successful February 2018 debut are few and far between, with the most likely explanation being some combination of issues with one or several of the ~25 satellites manifested and SpaceX’s ability to build a new Falcon Heavy rocket in time.
However, it’s decidedly ambiguous as to which one of those explanations truly takes precedence, given that SpaceX apparently told the USAF and its customers that it was ready to launch the mission between June and August.
“Officials working on the mission said SpaceX has provided the Air Force and other customers a 60-day window for launch opening on June 13. The Air Force spokesperson confirmed it will be the second Falcon Heavy mission.” – Stephen Clark, SpaceflightNow
Assuming SpaceX’s launch readiness announcement was accurate, the USAF and its customers must have run into some extreme issues while organizing all STP-2 payloads and integrating those satellites onto a custom-built adapter, a task that companies like Spaceflight Industries have shown to often be the long pole of rideshare launches. It’s also possible that SpaceX executives and managers underestimated or undersold the challenge of moving from a Falcon Heavy built solely on old Falcon 9 Block 2 and 3 boosters to an all-Block 5 version of the rocket, featuring a large number of highly-consequential changes like uprated engines and an entirely new approach to assembling each booster’s octaweb.
-
- Spaceflight’s SSO-A rideshare mission is quite similar to STP-2, albeit with more satellites on the smaller side. (Spaceflight)
-
- One group of STP-2 passengers, known as DSX, has been awaiting launch for more than eight years. (USAF)
-
- SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy launch will either be the USAF’s STP-2, a collection of smaller satellites, or Arabsat 6A, a large communications satellite. (USAF)
Lastly, depending on the nature of the launch contract between them, it’s possible that SpaceX had been planning on reflying Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters as its next Falcon Heavy’s side boosters, a move that would dramatically shorten the lead time required for a new Falcon Heavy to be produced. If the USAF expects or has unconditionally demanded all-new hardware for the launch of STP-2, SpaceX would need at least two (if not three) times the production resources to build and test Falcon Heavy #2, all while paralyzing those resources until well after the rocket’s first flight.
Building three separate Falcon 9/Heavy boosters, acceptance-testing them in Texas, and delivering them to Florida – all under uniquely strict USAF standards – would likely take SpaceX a bare minimum of four months from start to finish. In the guaranteed event that SpaceX had to simultaneously continue regular production, test operations, and preparations for Crew Dragon launches, an all-new Falcon Heavy would likely take more than 6-8 months to make flight-ready while still allowing SpaceX to avoid severe launch delays for its many other customers.
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
To add additional confusion to the mix, multiple reliable sources have confirmed that STP-2’s actual launch target is closer to March 2019, quite a stretch for “early 2019”. At the same time, Falcon Heavy customer Arabsat has reported that its Arabsat 6A satellite is expected to launch as early as January 2019. Ultimately, clarity can only come from the USAF, Arabsat, or SpaceX itself – for now, we wait.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
