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 dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794.
Tesla dominated JD Power’s EV Owner Satisfaction ranking for 2026, grabbing the top two spots in the survey with the Model 3 and Model Y.
The two Tesla models grabbed the first and second spots, respectively, with scores of 804 and 797 out of 1,000 possible points.
Brent Gruber, Executive Director of JD Power’s EV practice, said:
“EV market share has declined sharply following the discontinuation of the federal tax credit program in September 2025, but that dip belies steadily growing customer satisfaction among owners of new EVs. Improvements in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and overall vehicle performance have driven customer satisfaction to its highest level ever. What’s more, the vast majority of current EV owners say they will consider purchasing another EV for their next vehicle, regardless of whether they benefited from the now-expired federal tax credit.”
JD Power’s study showed three key findings: Public charging satisfaction was higher than ever, premium BEVs saw more pronounced quality improvements, and BEVs held their satisfaction ratings compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Tesla Grabs Top 2 Spots
Despite what some publications might try to make you believe, Tesla is still the cream of the crop when it comes to EV ownership, and real-world owners surveyed by JD Power will prove that to you.
The Model 3 was the highest ranking EV considered, with a score of 804, followed by the Model Y at 797, the BMW i4 at 795, and the BMW iX at 794. The segment average for “Premium Battery Electric Vehicles” was 786. The Cadillac OPTIQ (762), Rivian R1S (758), Lucid Air (740), Rivian R1T (739), and Audi Q6 e-Tron (690) all finished below that threshold.
Meanwhile, a separate category for “Mass Market Battery Electric Vehicles” had the Ford Mustang Mach-E as the EV with the highest rating at 760. The segment average for this class was 727.
🚨 Tesla topped J.D. Power’s new EV Owner Satisfaction Study for 2026, with the Model 3 (804) and Model Y (797) being the top-rated vehicles, beating out the BMW i4 (795) and iX (794)
Additionally, Tesla Superchargers helped public charging satisfaction rise to new highs:
“The… pic.twitter.com/4WIxoDxHig
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Tesla Supercharging Improves Public Charging Satisfaction
JD Power said the availability of public charging is “by far the most improved index factor,” and that the consistent growth of publicly available charging has helped push many consumer sentiments in a positive direction.
Most of this is due to the Tesla Supercharger Network and its expansion. However, Tesla owners are also becoming more satisfied with the infrastructure after expanding access to other EV brands, the study said.
Elon Musk
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.
A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.
The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”
The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.
While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.
City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful
One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.
After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.
One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”
🚨 After the City of Davis, California, held its City Council meeting on Tuesday and voted on a resolution called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” it was forced to admit that it needs… pic.twitter.com/hQiCIX3yll
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives
Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.
However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.
Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”
The UAW never took the opportunity.
Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.
Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.
“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.
One Resident Crosses a Line
One resident’s time at the podium included this:
Another member of the community did this…a member of the City Council admonished him and it came to a verbal spat https://t.co/zWvKCiCkie pic.twitter.com/1L334qq9av
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 19, 2026
He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.
City Council Vote Result
Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s xAI Secures $3B Investment From Saudi AI Firm HUMAIN
The transaction converts HUMAIN’s xAI stake into SpaceX shares, positioning the Saudi-backed firm as a significant minority shareholder in the newly combined entity.
Saudi artificial intelligence firm HUMAIN has confirmed a $3 billion Series E investment in xAI just weeks before the startup’s merger with SpaceX.
The transaction converts HUMAIN’s xAI stake into SpaceX shares, positioning the Saudi-backed firm as a significant minority shareholder in the newly combined entity.
The investment gives HUMAIN exposure to what has been described as one of the largest technology mergers on record, combining xAI’s artificial intelligence capabilities with SpaceX’s scale, infrastructure, and engineering base, as noted in a press release.
“This investment reflects HUMAIN’s conviction in transformational AI and our ability to deploy meaningful capital behind exceptional opportunities where long-term vision, technical excellence, and execution converge, xAI’s trajectory, further strengthened by its acquisition by SpaceX, one of the largest technology mergers on record, represents the kind of high-impact platform we seek to support with significant capital” HUMAIN CEO Tareq Amin stated.
The investment also positions HUMAIN for potential long-term equity upside should SpaceX proceed with a public offering.
The investment expands on an existing partnership announced in November 2025 at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum. Under that agreement, HUMAIN and xAI committed to jointly develop more than 500 megawatts of next-generation AI data center and compute infrastructure in Saudi Arabia.
The collaboration also includes deployment of xAI’s Grok models within the kingdom, aligning with Saudi Arabia’s broader strategy to build domestic AI capacity and attract global technology players.
HUMAIN, backed by the Public Investment Fund, is positioning itself as a full-stack AI player spanning advanced data centers, cloud infrastructure, AI models, and applied solutions. The Series E investment deepens its role from development partner to major shareholder in the Musk-led AI and space platform.
Tesla dominates JD Power EV Satisfaction ranking, grabbing top two spots
Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic
