News
SpaceX wins new Falcon Heavy launch contract as rocket’s prospects stabilize
SpaceX has won a new Falcon Heavy launch contract from Swedish telecommunications company Ovzon, which hopes to procure a large geostationary communications satellite in time for launch in the fourth quarter of 2020.
Excluding two pending contracts, a consequence of the many years of delays suffered since SpaceX first began marketing the rocket, Ovzon’s commitment is now the fourth commercial contract secured by Falcon Heavy in 2019 and 2020, solidifying enough demand to sustain – on average – biannual launches over the next two or so years.
Ovzon signs agreement with SpaceX for first satellite launch – read the full release here: https://t.co/M9YWRCyp5L
In an important step towards growing our satellite service offering, Ovzon has entered into an agreement with SpaceX for launch of Ovzon’s first GEO satellite. pic.twitter.com/HfMfl9jnNV— Ovzon AB (@OvzonAB) October 16, 2018
Speaking at IAC 2018, SpaceX VP of Reliability Hans Koenigsmann was by no means wrong when he described the latent demand seen for Falcon Heavy launches, stating that “there aren’t too many customers for it”. Indeed, just three firm launch contracts over the next two years did not bode particularly well for Falcon Heavy as a competitive complement to SpaceX’s commercial launch business – without regular demand and assuming a competitive and fixed-price market, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure needed to build and fly a distinct launch vehicle will inevitably end up cannibalizing profitability or even the ability to break even.
For vehicles like ULA’s Delta IV Heavy, NASA’s SLS, or the late Space Shuttle, the unique capabilities offered by certain low-volume rockets or even just the risk of faltering can lead to situations where anchor customers will swallow huge cost premiums for the sake of simply preserving those capabilities. In non-competitive markets, it does not take much for nearly any capability to become essentially priceless. SpaceX, however, paid for Falcon Heavy’s development without seeking – and even actively turning down – most government development funding or guaranteed launch contracts.
-
- Falcon Heavy ahead of its inaugural launch. (SpaceX)
-
- The extraordinary might of Delta IV Heavy’s hydrolox-burning RS-68A engines, producing a combined 2.1 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. (Tom Cross)
A tough life for big birds
As such, Falcon Heavy’s utility and existence are in a far more precarious position than most rockets, owing to the fact that SpaceX would likely not hesitate to kill the vehicle if commercial demand rapidly withered to nothing, far from impossible with just three total launches contracted over a period of fewer than two years. Prior to the USAF announcing a new Falcon Heavy launch contract in June 2018, that number was just two secured launches. Combined with the USAF purchase, Ozvon’s new contract suggests that prospects for the super-heavy-lift rocket may be at least warm enough to sustain its useful existence.
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy manifest:
– Arabsat 6A (NET early 2019)
– STP-2 (NET 2019)
– AFSPC-52 (NET September 2020)
– Ovzon (NET Q4 2020)Pending confirmed payloads:
– Viasat
– Inmarsat— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) October 16, 2018
There is also a decent chance that, once Falcon Heavy has proven itself with one or two real satellite launches, commercial launch customers will warm to its impressive capabilities. Most notably, Ozvon may have sided with Falcon Heavy solely because the powerful rocket can place its Ozvon-3 communications satellite directly into geostationary orbit (GEO), compared to the far more common process of launching the satellite roughly halfway there and letting it finish the journey on its own, known as geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) insertion.
There is undoubtedly significant commercial upside for geostationary communications satellites to arrive at their operational orbits as quickly as possible, rather than spending weeks or even months slowly making their way uphill from GTO. The cost of dedicated launches of Delta IV Heavy or Ariane 5 have far outweighed the benefits of earlier operability for as long as the rockets have been flying, though, and smaller and more affordable vehicles like Falcon 9, Atlas 5, or dual-manifested Ariane 5s simply aren’t powerful enough to launch traditionally-sized commsats directly to GEO.
-
- Falcon Heavy clears the top of the strongback in a spectacular fashion. Two of the rocket’s three manifested missions are now for the USAF. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s stunning dual side booster recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- 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)
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
In that regard, Falcon Heavy launches could become a commercial game changer and a distinct competitive advantage for companies that select it. Now with at least four launch contracts secured over the next ~24 months, Falcon Heavy will have a much better chance at demonstrating its true capabilities, potentially enabling military-premium launch services (~$250m+) at commercial-premium prices (~$90-150m). If it performs as intended in its next few launches, expected sometime in H1 2019, Falcon Heavy will be a strong contender for at least five additional USAF contracts as well as certain NASA missions scheduled to launch in the 2020s.
Experience with Falcon Heavy may only be tangentially beneficial at best to SpaceX’s greater BFR ambitions, but commercially, competitively, and reliably operating a rocket as large as FH for customers like the USAF and NASA would go a long, long way towards solidifying SpaceX’s perception as a ULA-equivalent launch provider for roughly half the cost.
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
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
