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!
-
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
-
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
