News
SpaceX, Rocket Lab, ULA all have rocket launches planned this weekend
The final weekend of August 2020 is shaping up to be an exciting one in the world of rocket launching. United Launch Alliance (ULA) looks to kick off weekend activities early on Saturday morning with the launch of its Delta IV Heavy rocket carrying a classified satellite payload for the National Reconnaissance Office at 2:04 am EDT (0604 UTC) from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Space Launch Complex 37. Following a successful ULA launch, the weekend’s activity will kick into high gear. Even SpaceX founder and CEO, Elon Musk, agrees that this weekend could be “intense” as stated in a post to his Twitter account Friday, August 28.
Good chance something will slip, but, yeah, Sunday is intense— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 28, 2020
According to weather Launch Mission Execution Forecasts provided by the 45th Weather Squadron and confirmed via the company’s Twitter account, SpaceX aims to get two Falcon 9’s launched from the Florida coast just nine hours apart. The company also has a possible flight test of its Starship prototype vehicle on the books from Boca Chica, Texas this weekend. Rocket Lab looks to join in the launching activity with the return to flight mission of its Electron rocket following the wrap-up of its recent in-flight anomaly investigation.
Pending Range availability, targeting back-to-back Falcon 9 launches from Florida on Sunday, August 30—another flight of Starlink from LC-39A at 10:12 a.m. EDT followed by the SAOCOM 1B mission from SLC-40 at 7:18 p.m. EDT pic.twitter.com/uV9MN2Nq2X— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 28, 2020
SpaceX can only launch this weekend if ULA does too
As SpaceX and ULA both launch from what is referred to as the eastern range – the location of all launches originating from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station or Kennedy Space Center – only one launch provider can be supported at a time by the 45th Space Wing and 45th Weather Squadron which oversee eastern range operations.
As a part of the reservation process ahead of securing a launch date with the eastern range, each launch provider chooses a targeted launch date and secures a number of back-up launch opportunities should a delay occur.
In the case of ULA’s NROL-44 mission, a primary launch opportunity and two back-up opportunities – 24 hours and 48 hours after the initial launch attempt – have been identified. This means that should the Delta IV Heavy suffer another critical issue resulting in a delay during its Saturday, August 29 primary launch attempt, both of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch opportunities will be delayed as well.
ULA’s NROL-44 Delta IV Heavy carries a classified satellite payload for the National Reconnaissance Office, a national security division of the United States government. As such, the NROL-44 mission is a matter of national security and takes precedence over both SpaceX’s internal Starlink mission and SAOCOM-1B payload for customer Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales, Argentina’s national space agency.
If the ULA NROL-44 mission is delayed through both back-up launch opportunities SpaceX, presumably, would have to wait until no earlier than Tuesday, September 1 to launch a Falcon 9.
Rocket Lab “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical”
While SpaceX will have to wait for ULA’s Delta IV Heavy to clear its pad before attempting either of the planned Falcon 9 launches, Rocket Lab will attempt the return to flight mission of its Electron rocket – the fourteenth flight overall – regardless (weather permitting).
The launch attempt initially scheduled for 11:04pm ET (0304 UTC) Friday, August 28 was rescheduled due to high winds and heavy cloud cover over Launch Complex-1A in Mahia, New Zealand. The next available launch attempt at 11:05 pm ET Sunday, August 30 (0305 UTC Monday, August 31) lines up for Electron to take off just four hours after SpaceX’s SAOCOM-1B mission.
Launch Update: Ground winds remain high at LC-1 tomorrow, so we're now targeting no earlier than Aug 31 UTC for the #ICantBelieveItsNotOptical mission. 🚀🛰️
Mission info https://t.co/zI36drt64x
Launch timing:
ET: 23:05, Aug 30
PT: 20:05, Aug 30
NZT: 15:05, Aug 31 pic.twitter.com/2RRwpxhDSl— Rocket Lab (@RocketLab) August 28, 2020
Following an in-flight anomaly during Electron’s thirteenth mission in July, Rocket Lab was forced to stand down from active launching status to complete a full investigation into the incident. In about a month’s time, Rocket Lab was able to track down and remedy an overheating issue with a single electrical connection on Electron’s second stage.
After receiving clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration to resume operational launches, Rocket Lab has announced that Electron’s fourteenth flight -nicknamed “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical” – will be a dedicated mission for Capella Space, a California-based company that utilizes Earth observation data to provide information services.
According to a statement provided by Rocket Lab, the satellite payload called “Sequoia” is “a single 100 kg class microsatellite which will be the first publicly available satellite in the company’s commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) constellation.”
A big goal of Rocket Lab’s is to join competitor SpaceX in a class of launchers that regularly recovers and reuses orbital-class boosters. Rocket Lab intends to catch an Electron first-stage booster in-flight once it has been dispensed by catching the falling booster’s parachute canopy with a grappling hook secured to a helicopter.
However, the company has stated that a full-scale demonstration of this effort is targeted for no earlier than the seventeenth mission of Electron currently slated to occur in Fall 2020.
If all proceeds as planned, this weekend could end up as a launchfest of rockets and spaceship prototypes. At the time of publishing, all is proceeding as expected for ULA’s Delta IV Heavy launch attempt and the weather looks good on Saturday, August 29.
ULA has confirmed that the previous issues that caused a launch attempt delay have all been cleared and weather outlook remains at an 80% chance of favorable launching conditions.
The launch attempt will be streamed live and is expected to begin at 1:43 am EDT (0543 UTC) on the company’s website or viewed below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5GjjCtcgo&feature=youtu.be
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.