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 Model Y and Model 3 named safest vehicles tested by ANCAP in 2025
According to ANCAP in a press release, the Tesla Model Y achieved the highest overall weighted score of any vehicle assessed in 2025.
The Tesla Model Y recorded the highest overall safety score of any vehicle tested by ANCAP in 2025. The Tesla Model 3 also delivered strong results, reinforcing the automaker’s safety leadership in Australia and New Zealand.
According to ANCAP in a press release, the Tesla Model Y achieved the highest overall weighted score of any vehicle assessed in 2025. ANCAP’s 2025 tests evaluated vehicles across four key pillars: Adult Occupant Protection, Child Occupant Protection, Vulnerable Road User Protection, and Safety Assist technologies.
The Model Y posted consistently strong results in all four categories, distinguishing itself through a system-based safety approach that combines structural crash protection with advanced driver-assistance features such as autonomous emergency braking, lane support, and driver monitoring.
This marked the second time the Model Y has topped ANCAP’s annual safety rankings. The Model Y’s previous version was also ANCAP’s top performer in 2022.
The Tesla Model 3 also delivered a strong performance in ANCAP’s 2025 tests, contributing to Tesla’s broader safety presence across segments. Similar to the Model Y, the Model 3 also earned impressive scores across the ANCAP’s four pillars. This made the vehicle the top performer in the Medium Car category.
ANCAP Chief Executive Officer Carla Hoorweg stated that the results highlight a growing industry shift toward integrated safety design, with improvements in technologies such as autonomous emergency braking and lane support translating into meaningful real-world protection.
“ANCAP’s testing continues to reinforce a clear message: the safest vehicles are those designed with safety as a system, not a checklist. The top performers this year delivered consistent results across physical crash protection, crash avoidance and vulnerable road user safety, rather than relying on strength in a single area.
“We are also seeing increasing alignment between ANCAP’s test requirements and the safety technologies that genuinely matter on Australian and New Zealand roads. Improvements in autonomous emergency braking, lane support, and driver monitoring systems are translating into more robust protection,” Hoorweg said.
News
Tesla Sweden uses Megapack battery to bypass unions’ Supercharger blockade
Just before Christmas, Tesla went live with a new charging station in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm, by powering it with a Tesla Megapack battery.
Tesla Sweden has successfully launched a new Supercharger station despite an ongoing blockade by Swedish unions, using on-site Megapack batteries instead of traditional grid connections. The workaround has allowed the Supercharger to operate without direct access to Sweden’s electricity network, which has been effectively frozen by labor action.
Tesla has experienced notable challenges connecting its new charging stations to Sweden’s power grid due to industrial action led by Seko, a major Swedish trade union, which has blocked all new electrical connections for new Superchargers. On paper, this made the opening of new Supercharger sites almost impossible.
Despite the blockade, Tesla has continued to bring stations online. In Malmö and Södertälje, new Supercharger locations opened after grid operators E.ON and Telge Nät activated the sites. The operators later stated that the connections had been made in error.
More recently, however, Tesla adopted a different strategy altogether. Just before Christmas, Tesla went live with a new charging station in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm, by powering it with a Tesla Megapack battery, as noted in a Dagens Arbete (DA) report.
Because the Supercharger station does not rely on a permanent grid connection, Tesla was able to bypass the blocked application process, as noted by Swedish car journalist and YouTuber Peter Esse. He noted that the Arlandastad Supercharger is likely dependent on nearby companies to recharge the batteries, likely through private arrangements.
Eight new charging stalls have been launched in the Arlandastad site so far, which is a fraction of the originally planned 40 chargers for the location. Still, the fact that Tesla Sweden was able to work around the unions’ efforts once more is impressive, especially since Superchargers are used even by non-Tesla EVs.
Esse noted that Tesla’s Megapack workaround is not as easily replicated in other locations. Arlandastad is unique because neighboring operators already have access to grid power, making it possible for Tesla to source electricity indirectly. Still, Esse noted that the unions’ blockades have not affected sales as much.
“Many want Tesla to lose sales due to the union blockades. But you have to remember that sales are falling from 2024, when Tesla sold a record number of cars in Sweden. That year, the unions also had blockades against Tesla. So for Tesla as a charging operator, it is devastating. But for Tesla as a car company, it does not matter in terms of sales volumes. People charge their cars where there is an opportunity, usually at home,” Esse noted.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s X goes down as users report major outage Friday morning
Error messages and stalled loading screens quickly spread across the service, while outage trackers recorded a sharp spike in user reports.
Elon Musk’s X experienced an outage Friday morning, leaving large numbers of users unable to access the social media platform.
Error messages and stalled loading screens quickly spread across the service, while outage trackers recorded a sharp spike in user reports.
Downdetector reports
Users attempting to open X were met with messages such as “Something went wrong. Try reloading,” often followed by an endless spinning icon that prevented access, according to a report from Variety. Downdetector data showed that reports of problems surged rapidly throughout the morning.
As of 10:52 a.m. ET, more than 100,000 users had reported issues with X. The data indicated that 56% of complaints were tied to the mobile app, while 33% were related to the website and roughly 10% cited server connection problems. The disruption appeared to begin around 10:10 a.m. ET, briefly eased around 10:35 a.m., and then returned minutes later.
Previous disruptions
Friday’s outage was not an isolated incident. X has experienced multiple high-profile service interruptions over the past two years. In November, tens of thousands of users reported widespread errors, including “Internal server error / Error code 500” messages. Cloudflare-related error messages were also reported.
In March 2025, the platform endured several brief outages spanning roughly 45 minutes, with more than 21,000 reports in the U.S. and 10,800 in the U.K., according to Downdetector. Earlier disruptions included an outage in August 2024 and impairments to key platform features in July 2023.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 named safest vehicles tested by ANCAP in 2025
Tesla Sweden uses Megapack battery to bypass unions’ Supercharger blockade
