News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch and landing could be more than a year away
According to comments made by US Air Force officials prior to SpaceX’s latest Falcon Heavy launch, the payload assigned to the military’s first fully-certified Falcon Heavy has been swapped with another, although the mission’s late-2020 launch target remains relatively unchanged.
This new information comes on the heels of the June 25th launch of Space Test Program 2 (STP-2), SpaceX’s third successful Falcon Heavy mission and a huge milestone for the rocket’s future as a competitive option for US military launches. Perhaps most importantly, it confirms – barring a surprise launch contract or internal Starlink mission – that Falcon Heavy’s next (and fourth) launch is unlikely to occur until late next year, a gap of at least 15-17 months.
Announced roughly four months after Falcon Heavy’s inaugural February 2018 launch debut, the USAF contracted with SpaceX to launch the ~6350 kg (14,000 lb) AFSPC-52 satellite no earlier than (NET) September 2020. In February 2019, Department of Defense contract announcements revealed that SpaceX had been awarded three military launch contracts, two for the National Reconnaissance Office (NROL-85 & NROL-87) and one for the USAF (AFSPC-44), all tentatively scheduled to launch in 2021.
First reported by Spaceflight Now, Col. Robert Bongiovi – director of the launch enterprise systems directorate at the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (AFSMC) – recently indicated that AFSPC-44 – not AFSPC-52 – is now scheduled to be the US military’s first post-certification Falcon Heavy launch. 52 and 44 have essentially swapped spots, with AFSPC-44 moving forward to NET Q4 (fall) 2020 while AFSPC-52 has been delayed to NET Q2 (spring) 2021.
The trouble with launch gaps
Although Bongiovi did not explicitly state that AFSPC-44 will be SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch, there are no publicly-disclosed missions set to launch on the rocket in the interim. That could theoretically change, especially if SpaceX has plans to launch the massive rocket in support of an internal Starlink mission or even something more exotic, but the loss of both Block 5 center core B1055 and B1057 means that the company will have to build an entirely new center core.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy lead times are far superior to competitor ULA’s Delta IV Heavy production line, but the process of manufacturing new center cores is still quite lengthy. Critically, Falcon Heavy Block 5 center cores require strengthened octawebs, custom interstages, and propellant tanks that are significantly thicker than those used on Falcon 9. For all intents and purposes, a center core is a totally different rocket relative to a Falcon 9 booster, the latter being SpaceX’s primary focus at the company’s assembly line-style Hawthorne factory. It’s theoretically possible for a dedicated Falcon Heavy center core build to be expedited or leapfrogged forward in the production queue, but most long-lead Falcon 9 booster hardware physically cannot be redirected to speed up center core production.
Unless SpaceX was already in the process of building a new center core prior B1057’s unsuccessful landing attempt, it’s safe to assume that the next custom Falcon Heavy booster is unlikely to be completed until early 2020, if not later. In theory, this means that Falcon Heavy could be dormant for no less than 16 months between STP-2 and its next launch. Traditionally, that sort of lengthy gap between launches has been frowned upon by NASA, ULA, and oversight groups like GAO. If a given rocket doesn’t launch for a year or more, it can potentially pose a risk to reliability and raise costs as its production and launch teams have no satisfactory way to fully preserve their technical expertise.
This can be compared to attempting to become an expert at a musical instrument while only having access to said instrument one or two months a year, essentially impossible. In fact, at one point, NASA hoped to require its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket be able to launch no less than once per year, partly motivated by a desire to mitigate some of the deterioration that can follow extremely low launch cadences. Years later, financial constraints and years upon years of delays and budget overruns have made such a cadence effectively impossible for SLS/Orion, but the fact remains that launching a rocket just once every 18-24 months is likely to inflate both costs and risks.
Thankfully, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could scarcely be more different than NASA’s SLS and the retired Space Shuttle it derives most of its hardware from. Even if all things are held equal and not flying a Falcon Heavy center core for 16+ months increases risk and cost, center cores are still heavily derived from Falcon 9 booster technology, including plumbing, avionics, attitude control thrusters, Merlin 1D engines, landing legs, and launch facilities.
Furthermore, the center core is just one of five distinct assemblies that make up a given Falcon Heavy. Both side boosters are effectively Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters with nose cones instead of interstages and slight modifications to support booster attachment hardware, while the upper stage and payload fairing are the same for all Falcon launches. In other words, SpaceX’s workforce will continue to build, launch, land, and reuse dozens of Falcon 9 boosters – as well as upper stages payload fairings – between now and Falcon Heavy Flight 4, even if it’s NET Q4 2020. In a worst-case scenario, SpaceX production and launch staff will be unfamiliar and inexperienced with maybe 20% of Falcon Heavy – at least in a very rough sense. Even then, much of that unfamiliarity may still be tempered by the fact that Falcon Heavy center cores share a large amount of commonality with the Falcon 9 first stages SpaceX’s workforce will remain deeply familiar with.
Indeed, Falcon Heavy’s second launch has already demonstrated this to some extent, occurring without issue more than 14 months after the rocket’s inaugural launch. It seems that the only real loss incurred by a ~16-month delay between Flights 3 and 4 will be having to wait another year (or more) to witness Falcon Heavy’s next launch.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin draws “red line” over IG Metall union’s 35-hour week demands
Factory manager André Thierig has drawn a “red line” against reducing Giga Berlin’s workweek to 35 hours, while highlighting that Tesla has actually increased its workers’ salaries more substantially than other carmakers in the country.
Tesla Giga Berlin has found itself in a new labor dispute in Germany, where union IG Metall is pushing for adoption of a collective agreement to boost wages and implement changes, such as a 35-hour workweek.
In a comment, Giga Berlin manager André Thierig drew a “red line” against reducing Giga Berlin’s workweek to 35 hours, while highlighting that Tesla has actually increased its workers’ salaries more substantially than other carmakers in the country.
Tesla factory manager’s “red line”
Tesla Germany is expected to hold a works council election in 2026, which André Thierig considers very important. As per the Giga Berlin plant manager, Giga Berlin’s plant expansion plans might be put on hold if the election favors the union. He also spoke against some of the changes that IG Metall is seeking to implement in the factory, like a 35-hour week, as noted in an rbb24 report.
“The discussion about a 35-hour week is a red line for me. We will not cross it,” Theirig said.
“(The election) will determine whether we can continue our successful path in the future in an independent, flexible, and unbureaucratic manner. Personally, I cannot imagine that the decision-makers in the USA will continue to push ahead with the factory expansion if the election results favor IG Metall.”
Giga Berlin’s wage increase
IG Metall district manager Jan Otto told the German news agency DPA that without a collective agreement, Tesla’s wages remain significantly below levels at other German car factories. He noted the company excuses this by referencing its lowest pay grade, but added: “The two lowest pay grades are not even used in car factories.”
In response, Tesla noted that it has raised the wages of Gigafactory Berlin’s workers more than their German competitors. Thierig noted that with a collective agreement, Giga Berlin’s workers would have seen a 2% wage increase this year. But thanks to Tesla not being unionized, Gigafactory Berlin workers were able to receive a 4% increase, as noted in a CarUp report.
“There was a wage increase of 2% this year in the current collective agreement. Because we are in a different economic situation than the industry as a whole, we were able to double the wages – by 4%. Since production started, this corresponds to a wage increase of more than 25% in less than four years,” Thierig stated.
News
Tesla is seeing a lot of momentum from young Koreans in their 20s-30s: report
From January to November, young buyers purchased over 21,000 Teslas, putting it far ahead of fellow imported rivals like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Tesla has captured the hearts of South Korea’s 20s-30s demographic, emerging as the group’s top-selling imported car brand in 2025. From January to November, young buyers purchased over 21,000 Teslas, putting it far ahead of fellow imported rivals like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Industry experts cited by The Economist attributed this “Tesla frenzy” to fandom culture, where buyers prioritize the brand over traditional car attributes, similar to snapping up the latest iPhone.
Model Y dominates among young buyers
Data from the Korea Imported Automobile Association showed that Tesla sold 21,757 vehicles to the 20s-30s demographic through November, compared to BMW’s 13,666 and Mercedes-Benz’s 6,983. The Model Y led the list overwhelmingly, with variants like the standard and Long Range models topping purchases for both young men and women.
Young men bought around 16,000 Teslas, mostly Model Y (over 15,000 units), followed by Model 3. Young women followed a similar pattern, favoring Model Y (3,888 units) and Model 3 (1,083 units). The Cybertruck saw minimal sales in this group.
The Model Y’s appeal lies in its family-friendly SUV design, 400-500 km range, quick acceleration, and spacious cargo, which is ideal for commuting and leisure. The Model 3, on the other hand, serves as an accessible entry point with lower pricing, which is valuable considering the country’s EV subsidies.
The Tesla boom
Experts described Tesla’s popularity as “fandom culture,” where young buyers embrace the brand despite criticisms from skeptics. Professor Lee Ho-geun called Tesla a “typical early adopter brand,” comparing purchases to iPhones.
Professor Kim Pil-soo noted that young people view Tesla more as a gadget than a car, and they are likely drawn by marketing, subsidies, and perceived value. They also tend to overlook news of numerous recalls, which are mostly over-the-air software updates, and controversies tied to the company.
Tesla’s position as Korea’s top import for 2025 seems secured. As noted by the publication, Tesla’s December sales figures have not been reported yet, but market analysts have suggested that Tesla has all but secured the top spot among the country’s imported cars this year.
News
Tesla FSD fleet is nearing 7 billion total miles, including 2.5 billion city miles
As can be seen on Tesla’s official FSD webpage, vehicles equipped with the system have now navigated over 6.99 billion miles.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) fleet is closing in on almost 7 billion total miles driven, as per data posted by the company on its official FSD webpage.
These figures hint at the massive scale of data fueling Tesla’s rapid FSD improvements, which have been quite notable as of late.
FSD mileage milestones
As can be seen on Tesla’s official FSD webpage, vehicles equipped with the system have now navigated over 6.99 billion miles. Tesla owner and avid FSD tester Whole Mars Catalog also shared a screenshot indicating that from the nearly 7 billion miles traveled by the FSD fleet, more than 2.5 billion miles were driven inside cities.
City miles are particularly valuable for complex urban scenarios like unprotected turns, pedestrian interactions, and traffic lights. This is also the difference-maker for FSD, as only complex solutions, such as Waymo’s self-driving taxis, operate similarly on inner-city streets. And even then, incidents such as the San Francisco blackouts have proven challenging for sensor-rich vehicles like Waymos.
Tesla’s data edge
Tesla has a number of advantages in the autonomous vehicle sector, one of which is the size of its fleet and the number of vehicles training FSD on real-world roads. Tesla’s nearly 7 billion FSD miles then allow the company to roll out updates that make its vehicles behave like they are being driven by experienced drivers, even if they are operating on their own.
So notable are Tesla’s improvements to FSD that NVIDIA Director of Robotics Jim Fan, after experiencing FSD v14, noted that the system is the first AI that passes what he described as a “Physical Turing Test.”
“Despite knowing exactly how robot learning works, I still find it magical watching the steering wheel turn by itself. First it feels surreal, next it becomes routine. Then, like the smartphone, taking it away actively hurts. This is how humanity gets rewired and glued to god-like technologies,” Fan wrote in a post on X.
Tesla Giga Berlin draws “red line” over IG Metall union’s 35-hour week demands
Tesla is seeing a lot of momentum from young Koreans in their 20s-30s: report
