News
SpaceX’s second dedicated USAF mission targets Dec. 2018 for GPS satellite launch
One of a number of 2018 SpaceX missions pushed into this year’s fourth quarter, SpaceX’s second-ever dedicated US Air Force payload is tracking towards a tentative mid-December launch, hopefully kicking off the deployment of the first ten third-generation GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites.
Set to launch the first and second GPS satellites on upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets, SpaceX and the USAF could potentially decide to fly one or several of the company’s contracted GPS missions on flight-proven boosters.
Air Force reports first GPS III spacecraft — nicknamed “Vespucci” in honor of Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci — has arrived in Titusville to prepare for December launch on SpaceX Falcon 9. pic.twitter.com/WbJgnyYWgl
— James Dean (@flatoday_jdean) August 22, 2018
Designed and built by Lockheed Martin, each of the first group of a dozen satellites will weigh approximately 3900 kg (8900 lb) and will be placed in a circular orbit 20,000 km (12,500 mi) above Earth’s surface, resulting in one completed orbit every 12 hours. Both as a result of each satellite’s significant mass and orbit requirement and the desire to spread risk over multiple launches, the first eight GPS Block IIIA spacecraft will ride into space on their own dedicated launch vehicles – five aboard Falcon 9, one on a ULA Delta IV, and the rest yet to be determined.
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 was certified to launch national security-sensitive USAF payloads in May 2015 after spending years fighting for the reintroduction of competition into the Department of Defense’s rocket launch procurement apparatus, killed back in the mid-2000s when Lockheed Martin and Boeing merged their space subsidiaries into the United Launch Alliance despite protests from NASA and some in the DoD.
SN Military Space | Air Force wants new GPS in orbit before year’s end • DoD big on OTAs • Space Force by 2020 a long shot – https://t.co/SKTAuJefRy pic.twitter.com/VV0JZi1hFD
— SpaceNews (@SpaceNews_Inc) August 28, 2018
That launch is now aiming for December 15th, 2018, although such a specific date nearly three and a half months out should be treating as purely for planning purposes. Originally planned to launch on a ULA Delta IV rocket, the USAF decided (for unknown reasons) to switch the order of launch, making SpaceX the launch provider for the first and second spacecraft, with ULA following up on the third launch. In March 2018, SpaceX was additionally awarded one more GPS IIIA launch with the option for two more, at a total contract cost of roughly $290 million or ~$97 million apiece. Of the remaining four satellites to be launched after Space Vehicle 06 (SV06) reaches orbit, contracts have yet to be competed, although that process is likely to begin within a year or so.
- It’s currently unclear whether B1046 or B1048 will become the first SpaceX rocket to fly three times. (Tom Cross)
- The second Block 5 booster, B1047, debuted at LC-40 on July 21. (Tom Cross)
- The scale of Falcon Heavy. (Photo: Tom Cross)
Barring any unforeseen developments or anomalies, SpaceX’s December launch of GPS IIIA SV01 ought to kick off a series of Falcon 9 GPS missions every 4-6 months between now and 2021 or 2022. After SV08 is launched sometime in those final years, the US Air Force will open competition slightly further, allowing launch providers SpaceX, ULA, and perhaps even Blue Origin to offer multi-satellite launches on their more powerful rocket offerings, including Falcon Heavy, heavier Atlas 5 variants, and New Glenn.
Beginning in March 2019, largely symbolic but still revolutionary language to be included in 2019’s defense procurement authorization may explicitly require the USAF to explain before Congress – in the event that a launch contract does not allow a reusable rocket to compete – why an expendable launch vehicle was privileged. Currently NET March 2019 as well, SpaceX’s third dedicated USAF launch – STP-2 on Falcon Heavy – is being set up primarily to help the USAF certify SpaceX’s newest heavy-lift rocket for national security launches.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
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.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
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.


