SpaceX
SpaceX’s third Falcon Heavy launch is just one month away
SpaceX is exactly one month away from Falcon Heavy’s next scheduled launch, an important mission for the US Air Force known as Space Test Program 2 (STP-2). Carrying 24 satellites of various sizes, Falcon Heavy is scheduled to lift off for the third time as early as June 22nd.
In support of the mission, SpaceX will need to completely integrate Falcon Heavy and prepare the rocket for a routine static fire test approximately one week prior to launch, sometime in mid-June. STP-2 will be critical to both SpaceX and the USAF for a number of reasons, ranging from rocket reusability to the future of US military launch procurement.
ICYMI: LightSail 2 is set to launch next month aboard a #SpaceX Falcon Heavy! Our citizen-funded solar sail is officially scheduled to lift off on 22 June 2019: https://t.co/J2AC5JQ1Kr pic.twitter.com/lC1MJoeh3C— Planetary Society (@exploreplanets) May 21, 2019
Rapid Falcon Heavy reuse
From a technological standpoint, Falcon Heavy Flight 3 will be a milestone in large part due to its reuse of two Falcon Heavy side boosters, previously flown on April 11th as part of Falcon Heavy’s Arabsat 6A commercial launch debut. Around eight minutes after launching the ~6450 kg (14,200 lb) satellite on its way to an exceptionally high transfer orbit of 90,000 km (56,000 mi), side boosters B1052 and B1053 completed flawless landings at LZ-1 and LZ-2.
Both boosters were quickly ‘broken over’ (brought horizontal) and transported to Pad 39A’s main hangar for inspection and refurbishment. Relative to almost all other Block 5 boosters, Falcon Heavy Flight 2’s side boosters were subjected to a uniquely gentle reentry thanks to a lower velocity stage separation. As such, they should be easier to turn around than most, but given that the boosters are also acting as partial pathfinders for the reuse of actual Falcon Heavy hardware, they are unlikely to break any records.
Sadly, the first Falcon Heavy Block 5 center core – B1055 – was toppled in high seas while still aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), cutting short any possibility of future reuses of the thoroughly scorched booster. For unknown reasons, be it an unrelated USAF requirement or SpaceX simply choosing caution, plans already accounted for a new center core flying on STP-2, although both Arabsat 6A side boosters were to be reused. Believed to be B1057, that new Falcon Heavy center core completed its Texas acceptance testing in late April and shipped to Cape Canaveral, Florida soon after.
An Air Force first
Aside from offering a chance for SpaceX to tie its 72-day Falcon 9 turnaround record twice, STP-2 has unexpectedly become a keystone of the US military’s interest in certifying flight-proven rockets for military launches. The USAF has described the reuse of Falcon Heavy boosters on STP-2 as a step forward for all future reusable launch vehicles, but the reality is that SpaceX is and will remain the only player in town until 2022 at the earliest. The next closest entrant – Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket – is unlikely to be ready for its launch debut before late ’21 or early ’22. ULA’s “SMART” reuse of Vulcan rocket engine sections is unlikely to be ready before the mid-2020s, likely 2024-2026.
SpaceX, however, has already reused Falcon 9 boosters more than 20 times on orbital-class missions, and the frequency of reuse is only likely to increase with the introduction of the final major Falcon 9 and Heavy upgrade, known as Block 5. Designed with a nominal lifespan of 10+ launches, each booster can support a huge number of missions and also offers the potential to dramatically reduce launch costs down the road. Additionally, as noted by VP of Launch Reliability Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX firmly believes that reliability will come hand in hand with routine reuse, as each recovered booster can serve as a treasure trove of data. Thanks to reusability, SpaceX can fill recoverable boosters to the brim with cameras and gather full-resolution telemetry otherwise inaccessible for an expendable rocket.
The matter of launch costs is not a particularly significant concern of the US military, mainly a consequence of the incredibly disproportionate relationship between the cost of launch and the cost the military satellite payloads. An excellent example of this disparity can be found in SpaceX’s December 2018 launch of the USAF’s first GPS III satellite: SpaceX’s launch contract cost $82M, while the Lockheed Martin-built spacecraft aboard cost no less than ~$600M.
However, reusable rockets are quite plainly the future of space launch, evidenced by SpaceX’s meteoric rise and rapid cannibalization of the global commercial launch market. As a partial result, the survival of ULA – a Lockheed Martin-Boeing cooperative that builds the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets – is almost completely dependent upon military development and launch contracts. Blue Origin, however, is now offering the promise of an independently stable launch provider thanks to continual funding from owner Jeff Bezos, and reusability will be an absolute necessity if its massive New Glenn rocket is to succeed.
In short, the USAF is faced with a simple proposition: get behind reusable rockets or risk falling behind. SpaceX is more than happy to ease the conservative military branch into the new era, and Falcon Heavy’s STP-2 launch will be a major step in the right direction. Thanks to its reuse of two side boosters, Air Force officials will be able to observe the process of rapid refurbishment firsthand, providing information they will then use to develop certification requirements for flight-proven rockets. More generally, STP-2 will also act as a dedicated demonstration that SpaceX and the USAF will use to fully certify Falcon Heavy for military launches, hopefully ending Delta IV Heavy’s decade-long monopoly over military heavy lift.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
Elon Musk
Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network.
The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.
Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.
Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.
A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.
The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted.
Tesla Cybertruck’s newest trim will undergo massive change in ten days, Musk says
Elon Musk’s Neuralink sparks BCI race in China
