News
SpaceX’s next-gen Falcon Heavy closer to reality as side booster leaves factory
A duo of rocket spottings on November 9th and 10th confirm that SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy rocket – an amalgamation of three Falcon 9 boosters, an upper stage, and extensive modifications – is already in the late stages of manufacturing and is nearing the beginning of integrated structural and static fire testing.
As of now, this Falcon Heavy side booster could end up supporting either or both of two near-term launch contracts in place for the rocket, communications satellite Arabsat 6A or the US Air Force’s second Space Test Program (STP-2) launch
SpaceX's second Falcon Heavy is slowly but surely coming together 😀 https://t.co/AYJsQ8Mld5
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) November 13, 2018
The question of the hour – at least for Falcon Heavy – is which of those two available payloads will be atop the rocket on its first truly commercial launch. While suboptimal, a few general characteristics of each payload, SpaceX’s history of commercial launches, and Falcon Heavy itself can offer a hint or two.
Triple the rocket, triple the trouble
Thanks in large part to the fact that the first integrated Falcon Heavy was composed of two relatively old Falcon 9 booster variants and a center core that was quite literally a one-off rocket, the process of reenginering and building another Falcon Heavy rocket off of the family’s newest Block 5 variant has likely been far harder than simply building another Falcon Heavy. Although all three original Falcon Heavy boosters (B1023, B1025, and B1033) were in the same league as Block 5, their Block 2 and Block 3 hardware was designed for approximately 10% less thrust and are almost entirely different vehicles from the perspective of structures and avionics.
Perhaps even more importantly, it’s unknown whether Falcon Heavy Block 1 (for lack of a better descriptor) was designed with serious reusability in mind, at least in the same sense as Falcon 9 Block 5 was. For instance, a major portion of the rocket’s extreme complexity and difficulties lies in the basic need to transmit three times as much thrust through the center core. To do that and do it without rocket-powered separation mechanisms, SpaceX had to develop structural attachments and connections capable of surviving unbelievable mechanical and thermal stresses for minutes on end.
-
- The first Falcon Heavy was a Frankenstein’s monster of sorts. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy is seen here lifting off during its spectacular launch debut. (SpaceX)
-
- A Falcon Heavy side booster was spotted eastbound in Arizona on November 10th. (Reddit – beast-sam)
Clearly, this was an unfathomably difficult problem to solve in such a manner that Falcon Heavy would work at all the first time. Factor in the strategic need for those same components to survive repeated cycles of those stresses with minimal refurbishment in between and the problem at hand likely becomes a magnitude more difficult, at least. In large part, this helps to explain why there will end up being a minimum of 11-12 months between Falcon Heavy’s first and second launches.
Arabsat or STP?
Over the course of SpaceX’s last 2-3 years of commercial launch activity, the company and its customers have demonstrated time and time again a reliable pattern: commercial customers (in the sense of private entities) are far more willing to take risks with new technologies than SpaceX’s government customers. NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services is the exception for the latter group but also has no Falcon Heavy launch contracts. For Falcon Heavy, there are thus main three options at hand.
- Arabsat 6A launches first with 1-2 flight-proven boosters; the Air Force’s STP-2 mission flies on an all-new Falcon Heavy 4-6 months later.
- SpaceX builds entirely new Falcon Heavy rockets for both customers, requiring four new side boosters and two new center cores.
- STP-2 launches first on an all-new Falcon Heavy; Arabsat 6A launches second on the first flight-proven Falcon Heavy after 6+ months of additional delays.
-
- The USAF’s STP-2, a combination of a few dozen different satellites. (USAF)
-
- The communications satellite Arabsat-6A. (Lockheed Martin)
-
- LZ-1 and LZ-2, circa February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- A closeup of one of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters after landing. (SpaceX)
Arabsat is far more likely to accept – for a significant discount – a ride aboard the first flight-proven Falcon Heavy, especially if it means preventing more major launch delays. If the Falcon Heavy side booster spotted eastbound last week is a refurbished Block 5 booster rather than a new rocket, than option 1 is the easy choice for most probable outcome. The real pack leader for Falcon Heavy Flight 2, however, will be the completion of a new Block 5 center core and its shipment to Texas for structural and static fire testing.
Time will tell. For now, a completed Falcon Heavy side booster is the best sign yet that SpaceX may manage the rocket’s second launch in the first quarter of 2019, whichever launch that may be.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
