News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch slips into 2021
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch – set to be the rocket’s fourth overall – has slipped several months into 2021 according to the vice commander of the US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (USAF SMC).
Known as AFSPC-44 (now USSF-44), the nature of Falcon Heavy’s next payload remains a mystery. Headed to geostationary orbit, the satellite will likely be involved in military satellite communications, possibly including espionage (also known as signals intelligence or SIGINT). Technically, the USSF-44 mission includes two separate satellites and at least two additional rideshare payloads and will weigh roughly 3.7 metric tons (~8200 lb) at launch.
When the contract was announced, Falcon Heavy was expected to launch USSF-44 no earlier than (NET) Q4 2020. By April 2020, that target was closer to late November or December. Now, four months after that report, Brigadier General Jason Cothern says that SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch is scheduled NET February 28th, 2021.
The delay doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Based on public observation of SpaceX’s Falcon booster production and testing, requiring thousands of miles of extremely conspicuous highway transport, it was already clear that the mission was unlikely to launch this year. Of the six first stages spotted in transport over the last nine months, all were clearly Falcon 9 boosters and lacked any of the telltale parts that distinguish Falcon Heavy side and center boosters.
The most recent ‘core spottings’ – a new Falcon 9 booster headed West after acceptance testing and another preparing for acceptance testing in Texas late last month – all but confirmed that USSF-44 was significantly delayed. Since mid-2019, SpaceX has intentionally slowed down Falcon booster production to focus on the higher-volume production of expendable hardware (fairings and second stages). While the company could technically complete boosters every two weeks if its feet were put to the coals and has generally averaged 10 per year, that figure has dropped closer to 6-8 boosters per year over the last ~18 months.
Coupled with a report that all three of the USSF-44 Falcon Heavy rocket’s boosters would be brand new, the lack of sightings in the wild implied that has yet to ship even one of those complex rockets to McGregor, Texas for acceptance testing. Based on preparations for Falcon Heavy’s April 2019 Block 5 launch debut, the process of testing three new Falcon boosters singlehandedly takes at least three months. Additionally, all three of the Arabsat 6A mission’s new Falcon Heavy boosters arrived in Florida a full two months before launch.
In other words, given that a brand new Falcon 9 booster rolled out of SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory on August 24th and that said factory isn’t really set up for concurrent booster completion, it would take unprecedented feats of manufacturing and testing for Falcon Heavy Flight 4 to be ready to launch less than four months from now (around the turn of the New Year).
In fact, even under the assumption that the next three boosters on SpaceX’s factory assembly line are all for Falcon Heavy Flight 4, the new February 2021 launch date is going to be a tight deadline. There is no evidence that SpaceX production delays are to blame for the USSF-44 launch delay and the coronavirus-related disruption of satellite production is equally – if not more – likely. Either way, SpaceX’s fourth Falcon Heavy launch will have to wait a few extra months. Barring a surprise mission over the next six months, Falcon Heavy Flight 4 will also be SpaceX’s first operational launch directly to geostationary orbit (GEO).
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.
Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.
The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.
China EV market trends
The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.
Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market.
Tesla China’s strategies
To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.
Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
