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.
A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.
Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.
Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.
In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.
The charging documents state:
“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”
Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”
The documents outlined this:
“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘
Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.
Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.
Tesla shocked with its quarterly delivery report yesterday by reporting it delivered 480,126 vehicles in the second quarter of 2026, a 25 percent year-over-year jump that crushed Wall Street estimates of roughly 400,000–408,000 units. Production reached 451,758, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority.
The result ended two years of annual delivery declines and drew down inventory, signaling demand that outpaced earlier production.
Tesla bears had long warned that the expiration of the U.S. federal EV tax credit would hammer demand. Without the $7,500 incentive, they argued, American buyers would balk at higher effective prices, leading to a sharp slowdown.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
That narrative has not played out as predicted. While U.S. EV sales faced broader headwinds, Tesla’s global numbers held firm, underscoring the company’s ability to offset domestic pressure through other levers.
There are several plausible factors that explain Tesla’s strength during this quarter. Let’s take a look at them:
Rising Gas Prices
Rising gas prices provided a powerful tailwind, especially in the U.S.
Geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran conflict pushed fuel costs higher earlier in the year, amplifying the lifetime savings of electric vehicles. Even as oil prices later moderated, the psychological and financial impact lingered, encouraging fleet operators and private buyers to accelerate EV purchases. European sales rebounded sharply, helping drive the quarter’s outperformance.
Full Self-Driving Adoption
Advances in Full Self-Driving (FSD) supervised software also appear to have boosted appeal. Tesla expanded FSD availability in select European markets and continued refining the system.
No complaints from me because I finally got to enjoy this drive on FSD; I usually like to manually drive down this mountain https://t.co/RBFniRPSR0 pic.twitter.com/XQ5sOpN1Yg
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
For tech-oriented buyers, the promise of future autonomy and enhanced driver-assistance features adds perceived value beyond the car itself. This differentiation helps Tesla stand out in a crowded market where competitors focus primarily on hardware and basic range.
Pricing Strategy, Affordable Configurations
Tesla’s offerings and its pricing strategy during Q2 further stimulated demand. Tesla introduced lower-cost versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, widening accessibility without sacrificing core margins.
These moves countered affordability concerns and attracted buyers who had been waiting on the sidelines. Combined with attractive financing and leasing options, the pricing strategy converted interest into actual orders more effectively than many analysts expected.
Broad European Recovery
Supported by government incentives, corporate fleet electrification, and easing political headwinds around CEO Elon Musk, Tesla was supplied additional momentum through stronger registration numbers throughout Europe.
Strong exports from the Shanghai Gigafactory and a production ramp at Giga Berlin ensured supply met this resurgent demand. Corporate buyers, in particular, accelerated transitions to EVs to meet sustainability targets, providing a steady volume base.
These elements created a virtuous cycle that delivered the strong deliveries report. While bears correctly flagged the loss of the U.S. tax credit as a risk, Tesla’s diversified playbook demonstrated that it could remain resilient against those headwinds. The Q2 beat suggests the company remains adept at navigating shifting market conditions, even as competition intensifies.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise
