Connect with us

News

A SpaceX surprise: Falcon Heavy booster landing to smash distance record

Falcon Heavy center core B1055 landed aboard drone ship OCISLY nearly 970 km (600 mi) off the coast of Florida. Center core B1057 could smash that record by almost 30% on June 24th. (SpaceX)

Published

on

In an unexpected last-second change, SpaceX has moved Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s center core landing on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) from 40 km to more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida.

Drone ship OCISLY is already being towed to the landing site, necessary due to the sheer distance that needs to be covered at a leisurely towing pace. The current record for distance traveled during booster recovery was set at ~970 km by Falcon Heavy center core B1055 in April 2019. If successful, Falcon Heavy center core B1057 will smash that record by almost 30% after sending two dozen spacecraft on their way to orbit. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is scheduled to lift off in support of the Department of Defense’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission no earlier than 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th. A routine static fire test at Pad 39A will (hopefully) set the stage for launch on Wednesday, June 19th.

This comes as a significant surprise for several reasons. First and foremost, the difference between a center core landing 40 km or 1300 km from the launch site is immense. For Falcon Heavy, the center core shuts down and separates from the rest of the rocket as much as a minute after the rocket’s two side boosters, potentially doubling the booster’s relative velocity at separation.

USAF photographer James Rainier's remote camera captured this spectacular view of Falcon Heavy Block 5 side boosters B1052 and B1053 returning to SpaceX Landing Zones 1 and 2. (USAF - James Rainier)
A return to launch site (RTLS) booster recovery requires a ton of latent performance, particularly for a booster traveling as fast as a Falcon Heavy center core. (USAF – James Rainier)

That extra minute of acceleration means that the center core can easily be 50-100+ km downrange at the point of separation. In other words, landing 40 km offshore aboard drone ship OCISLY would be roughly akin to a full boostback burn, meaning that the center core would need to nullify all of its substantial downrange velocity, turn around, and fly ~50-100 km back towards the launch site. Being able to perform such an aggressive maneuver would indicate that Falcon Heavy’s boost stage has a huge amount of propellant (delta V) remaining after completing its role in the launch.

To have STP-2’s center core recovery moved from 40 km to 1240 km thus indicates an absolutely massive change in the rocket’s mission plan and launch trajectory. For reference, Falcon Heavy Flight 2’s Block 5 center core (B1055) set SpaceX’s current record for recovery distance (970 km/600 mi) after launching Arabsat 6A – a massive ~6500 kg (14,300 lb) satellite – to a spectacularly high transfer orbit of >90,000 km (56,000 mi).

Why so spicy?

There are three obvious possibilities that might help explain why the STP-2 mission has abruptly indicated that it will require SpaceX’s most energetic booster recovery yet.

1. STP-2 is carrying at least 1-2 metric tons worth of mystery payload(s)

This is highly unlikely. The USAF SMC has already released a SpaceX photo showing the late stages of the STP-2 payload stack’s encapsulation inside Falcon Heavy’s payload fairing. Short of an elaborate faked encapsulation followed by the installation of additional mysterious spacecraft or some extremely dense hardware hidden inside, it’s safe to say that the STP-2 payload stack weighs what the USAF says it weighs, which is to say not nearly heavy enough to warrant a record-smashing booster recovery given the known orbital destinations.

Advertisement

The USAF further confirmed that there is no ballast on the stack, removing the possibility of a lead weight or steel boilerplate meant to artificially push Falcon Heavy to its limits.

2. STP-2’s already-challenging Falcon upper stage mission profile is even more exotic than described

Per official mission overviews, it’s already clear that STP-2 could be the most challenging launch ever attempted for SpaceX’s orbital Falcon upper stage. According to SpaceX itself, “STP-2…will be among the most challenging launches in SpaceX history, with four separate upper-stage engine burns, three separate deployment orbits, a final propulsive passivation maneuver, and a total mission duration of over six hours.”

An overview of the STP-2 Falcon Heavy upper stage’s exotic and extremely challenging mission profile. (USAF)

While undeniably challenging, it’s not clear why it would require such a high-energy center core recovery. With a payload mass of just ~3700 kg, Falcon 9 has launched much larger payloads to (relatively) higher orbits, but this fails to account for the added challenge of long coasts and multiple different orbits. Also of note, the above graph (courtesy of a years-old USAF document) appears to disagree with SpaceX’s description of “four… upper-stage burns”, instead showing five burns (red spikes).

More likely than not, OCISLY’s ~1200-kilometer move can be explained largely by the reintroduction of what the above graph describes as the Falcon upper stage’s “disposal burn”, likely referring to a deorbit burn. On top of the delta V already required for the first four burns, it isn’t out of the question that an additional coast and deorbit burn from 6000 km (3700 mi) would push the recovery equation in favor of attempting to incinerate center core B1057.

Falcon Heavy’s upper stage deploys its payload fairing, revealing the STP-2 payload stack. (SpaceX)

3. USAF/DoD conservatism strikes again?

The last plausible explanation for this radical shift is that the US Air Force/Department of Defense (DoD) has decided last-second that they want more margins on top of their already-overflowing safety margins, quite literally pushing B1057 to the edge of its performance envelope to mitigate low-probability failure modes. This has been done to an even more extreme extent with the US Air Force’s recent GPS III SV01 launch, in which SpaceX was forced to expend a new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster to provide the extreme safety margins the USAF desired.

According to the USAF, the STP-2 mission – including launch costs – represents as much as $750M, coincidentally similar to the estimated cost of the GPS III SV01 satellite and an expendable Falcon 9 rocket. As such, it’s not out of the question that a similar level of paranoia/conservatism is in play for STP-2.

Falcon 9 lifts off with the US Air Force’s first ~$500M GPS III spacecraft, December 2018. (SpaceX)

Numbers 2 and 3 are equally plausible explanations for this last-second booster recovery shift. Given the US military’s active involvement, it’s more likely than not that no explanations will be offered. Regardless, this surprise development is bound to result in a truly spectacular recovery attempt for SpaceX’s second Block 5 center core and will likely involve breaking several still-fresh records in the process.

Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is in the middle of rolling out to SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A launch facilities for a routine pre-launch static fire test, scheduled to occur no earlier than 12:30 pm ET (16:30 UTC), June 19th. If all goes well, SpaceX should be on track for its first STP-2 launch attempt at 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla VP explains latest updates in trade secret theft case

Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.

Published

on

tesla 4680
Credit: Tesla Inc.

Tesla Vice President Bonne Eggleston explained the latest updates in a trade secret theft case the company has against a former manufacturing equipment supplier, Matthews International.

Back in 2024, Tesla had filed a lawsuit against Matthews International, alleging that the firm stole trade secrets about battery manufacturing and shared those details with some of Tesla’s competitors.

Early last year, a U.S. District Court Judge denied Tesla’s request to block Matthews International from selling its dry battery electrode (DBE) technology across the world. The judge, Edward Davila, said that the patent for the tech was due to Matthews’ “extensive research and development.”

Tesla is suing a former supplier for trade secret theft

The two companies’ relationship began back in 2019, as Tesla hired Matthews to help build the equipment for its 4680 battery cell. Tesla shared confidential software, designs, and know-how under strict secrecy rules.

Fast forward a few years, and Tesla reportedly caught Matthews copying the tech into machines that were sold to competitors, claiming they lied about doing so for three years, and continued to ship it. That is when Tesla chose to sue Matthews in July 2024 in Federal court, demanding over $1 billion in damages due to trade secret theft.

Now, the latest twist, as this month, a Judge issued a permanent injunction—a court order banning Matthews from using certain stolen Tesla parts or designs in their machines. Matthews is also officially “liable” for damages. The exact amount would still to be calculated later.

Bonne Eggleston, a VP for Tesla, said on X today that Matthews is a supplier who “exploited customer IP through theft or deception,” and has no place in Tesla’s ecosystem:

Tesla calls this a big win and warns other companies: “Buyer beware—don’t buy from thieves.”

Matthews hit back with a press release claiming victory. They say an arbitrator ruled they can keep selling their own DBE equipment to anyone and rejected Tesla’s request for a total sales ban. They call Tesla’s claims “nonsense” and insist their 20-year-old tech is independent. Both sides are spinning the same narrow ruling: Matthews can sell their version, but they’re blocked from using Tesla’s specific secrets.

What are Tesla’s Current Legal Options

The case isn’t over—it’s moving to the damages phase. Tesla can:

  • Push forward in court or arbitration to calculate and collect huge financial penalties (potentially $1 billion+ if willful theft is proven).
  • Enforce the permanent injunction with contempt charges, fines, or even jail time if Matthews violates it.
  • Challenge Matthews’ new patents that allegedly copy Tesla’s work, asking courts to invalidate them or add Tesla as co-inventor.
  • Seek extra damages, lawyer fees, and possibly punitive awards under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California law.

Tesla could also refer evidence to federal prosecutors for possible criminal trade-secret charges (rare but serious). Settlement is always possible, but Tesla’s fiery public response suggests they want full accountability.

This isn’t just corporate drama. It shows why trade secrets matter even when Tesla open-sources some patents, confidential know-how shared in trust must stay protected. For the EV industry, it’s a reminder: steal from your biggest customer, and you risk losing everything.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybercab includes this small but significant feature

The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Cybercab manufacturing is strikingly close, as the company is still aiming for an April start date. But small and significant features are still being identified for the first time as production units appear all over the country for testing and for regulatory events, like one yesterday in Washington, D.C.

The Cybercab is Tesla’s big plan to introduce fully autonomous ride-sharing in a seamless fashion. In fact, the Full Self-Driving suite was geared toward alleviating the need to manually drive vehicles.

This was for everyone, including the disabled, who are widely reliant on ride-sharing platforms, family members, and medical shuttles for transportation of any kind. Cybercab aims to change that, and Tesla evidently put a focus on those riders while developing the vehicle, evident in a small but significant feature revealed during its appearance in the Nation’s Capital.

Tesla Cybercab display highlights interior wizardry in the small two-seater

Tesla has implemented Braille within the Cybercab to make it easier for blind passengers to utilize the vehicle. On both the ‘Stop/Hazard Lights’ button and the Door Releases, Tesla has placed Braille so that blind passengers can navigate their way through the vehicle:

This is a great addition to the Cybercab, especially as Full Self-Driving has been partially pointed at as a solution for those with disabilities that would keep them from driving themselves from place to place.

It truly is a great addition and just another way that Tesla is showing they are making this massive product inclusive for everyone out there, including those who have not been able to drive due to not having vision.

The Cybercab is set to enter mass production sometime in April, and it will be responsible for launching Tesla’s massive plans for an autonomous ride-sharing program.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla and xAI team up on massive new project

It is the latest move by a Musk company to automate, streamline, and reduce the manual, monotonous, and tedious work currently performed by humans through AI and robotics development. Digital Optimus will be capable of processing and actioning the past five seconds of a real-time computer screen video and keyboard and mouse actions.

Published

on

Credit: Grok

Elon Musk teased a massive new project, to be developed jointly by Tesla and xAI, called “Digital Optimus” or “Macrohard,” the first development under Tesla’s investment agreement with xAI.

Musk announced on X that Digital Optimus will “be capable of emulating the function of entire companies.”

It is the latest move by a Musk company to automate, streamline, and reduce the manual, monotonous, and tedious work currently performed by humans through AI and robotics development. Digital Optimus will be capable of processing and actioning the past five seconds of a real-time computer screen video and keyboard and mouse actions.

Essentially, it will be an AI version of a desk worker in many capacities, including accounting, HR tasks, and others.

Musk said:

“Grok is the master conductor/navigator with deep understanding of the world to direct digital Optimus, which is processing and actioning the past 5 secs of real-time computer screen video and keyboard/mouse actions. Grok is like a much more advanced and sophisticated version of turn-by-turn navigation software. You can think of it as Digital Optimus AI being System 1 (instinctive part of the mind) and Grok being System 2. (thinking part of the mind).”

Its key applications would be used for enterprise automation, simulating entire companies, high-volume repetitive tasks, and potentially, future hybrid use with the Optimus robot, which would handle physical tasks, while Digital Optimus would handle the clerical work.

Tesla announces massive investment into xAI

The creation of a digital AI suite like Digital Optimus would help companies save time and money, as well as become more efficient in their operations through massive scalability. However, there will undoubtedly be concerns from people who are skeptical of a fully-integrated AI workhorse like this one.

From an energy consumption perspective and just a general concern for the human workforce, these types of AI projects are polarizing in nature.

However, Digital Optimus would be a great digital counterpart to Tesla’s physical Optimus robot, as it would be a hyper-efficient addition to any company that is looking for more production for less cost.

Musk maintains that there is no other company on Earth that will be able to do this.

Continue Reading