News
A SpaceX surprise: Falcon Heavy booster landing to smash distance record
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Tesla bear Michael Burry got blunt with his beliefs over the company’s valuation, which he called “ridiculously overvalued” in a newsletter to subscribers this past weekend.
“Tesla’s market capitalization is ridiculously overvalued today and has been for a good long time,” Burry, who was the inspiration for the movie The Big Short, and was portrayed by Christian Bale.
Burry went on to say, “As an aside, the Elon cult was all-in on electric cars until competition showed up, then all-in on autonomous driving until competition showed up, and now is all-in on robots — until competition shows up.”
Tesla bear Michael Burry ditches bet against $TSLA, says ‘media inflated’ the situation
For a long time, Burry has been skeptical of Tesla, its stock, and its CEO, Elon Musk, even placing a $530 million bet against shares several years ago. Eventually, Burry’s short position extended to other supporters of the company, including ARK Invest.
Tesla has long drawn skepticism from investors and more traditional analysts, who believe its valuation is overblown. However, the company is not traded as a traditional stock, something that other Wall Street firms have recognized.
While many believe the company has some serious pull as an automaker, an identity that helped it reach the valuation it has, Tesla has more than transformed into a robotics, AI, and self-driving play, pulling itself into the realm of some of the most recognizable stocks in tech.
Burry’s Scion Asset Management has put its money where its mouth is against Tesla stock on several occasions, but the firm has not yielded positive results, as shares have increased in value since 2020 by over 115 percent. The firm closed in May.
In 2020, it launched its short position, but by October 2021, it had ditched that position.
Tesla has had a tumultuous year on Wall Street, dipping significantly to around the $220 mark at one point. However, it rebounded significantly in September, climbing back up to the $400 region, as it currently trades at around $430.
It closed at $430.14 on Monday.
Tesla appears to be making a change to its exterior side repeater cameras, which are used for the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, and other features, like Sentry Mode.
The change appears to be a potential upgrade in preparation for the AI5 suite, which CEO Elon Musk said will be present on a handful of vehicles next year, but will not be widely implemented until 2027.
Currently, Tesla uses a Sony sensor lens with the model number IMX963, a 5-megapixel camera with better dynamic range and low-light performance over the past iteration in Hardware 3 vehicles. Cameras in HW3 cars were only 1.2 megapixels.
However, Tesla is looking to upgrade, it appears, as Tesla hacker greentheonly has spotted a new sensor model in its firmware code, with the model number IMX00N being explicitly mentioned:
Looks like Tesla is changing (upgrading?) cameras in (some?) new cars produced.
Where as HW4 to date used exterior cameras with IMX963, now they (might potentially) have something called IMX00N— green (@greentheonly) December 1, 2025
Sony has not announced any formal specifications for the IMX00N model, and although IMX963 has been used in AI4/HW4 vehicles, it only makes sense that Tesla would prepare to upgrade these external cameras once again in preparation for what it believes to be the second hardware iteration capable of fully autonomous self-driving.
Tesla has maintained that AI4/HW4 vehicles are capable of self-driving operation, but AI5 will likely help the company make significant strides, especially in terms of overall performance and data collection.
Tesla last updated its exterior cameras on its vehicles back in early 2023, as it transitioned to the 5-megapixel IMX963. It also added additional cameras to its vehicles in January with the new Model Y, which featured an additional lens on the front bumper to help with Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s new self-driving computer (HW4): more cameras, radar, and more
Tesla launched the Model Y Standard as an attempt to offer affordable electric vehicles to consumers now that the $7,500 EV tax credit is gone. We were able to spend four days with the car, and it was more than enough time to determine whether or not the car was worth the $9,000 discount compared to the Premium All-Wheel-Drive configuration, which is what I drive daily.
The Model Y Standard was stripped of some of the features that are present in the Premium trims of the Model Y: no glass roof, a sound system with roughly half the speakers, fewer acoustic-lined glass windows, less storage, and less functionality from an interior standpoint.
However, there are some real advantages to purchasing a Standard Model Y, and there are a handful of situations where this car would be well-suited.
Do I think it is worth the lower price? Well, I’ll get to that later in this article.
Initial Thoughts
In my first impressions review of the Model Y Standard, I talked about the face-value differences between my Model Y Premium and the new, more affordable trim. You will first notice the lack of storage between the front two seats, as the cupholder and additional storage bin sliding doors are void. You still get the cupholders, but they are exposed, which isn’t a huge deal, but it definitely takes away from the sleek look the Premium trim offers.
Additionally, the textile seats replace those of the vegan leather that is available in the upper-level trims. I mentioned previously that I could take or leave the vegan leather for the textile seats, as they are easy to clean, quick drying, and hide oils from your skin much better than leather does.
However, there comes one big sacrifice that I have been spoiled by, as the textile seats are not ventilated, so say goodbye to cooling your keister in the Summertime.
The lack of a glass roof is something many owners might not even notice. However, I have been spoiled by the glass roof in my car, and I look out of it every time I’m in my car. It is one of my favorite features, without a doubt. While it would not be a dealbreaker for me, it would be something I would miss terribly.
Things I Noticed After Several Days
Cabin Noise
One of the biggest things I noticed after the first two days in the Model Y Standard is that the cabin is much louder than the Premium. This is because Tesla did not acoustically line all of the glass in the Standard configuration, as it did in the Premium. The side windows are not treated, just the windshields. Therefore, you notice the noise level in the cabin is louder than in the Premium.
If you had not been driving in a Premium trim for a few months, you might not notice it. However, it is something that is a big sacrifice when moving to a different trim level, especially one that is less premium than what you might currently drive.
I have always been so shocked at how amazingly quiet the Premium trim’s cabin is; my Model Y is extremely peaceful, even when I’m sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and people have modified mufflers and exhaust systems, tractor-trailers are going by, or crotchrockets are zipping by on the interstate.
This is a huge difference between the two cars, and it is something that is really hard to get used to. I know, first-world problems, right? But when you’re paying between $39,990 and $48,990 for a car, those little things truly do matter.
Stereo System Differences
Another thing I was very aware of was how weak the sound system is. I think if I had bought a Standard Model Y, I would have looked at having the speakers and subwoofers upgraded; I was almost disappointed in how much of a change it was between the two cars.
When I finally picked up my Model Y Premium on Friday (which had been detailed by the awesome team at Tesla Mechanicsburg), the first thing I did was crank up the volume and listen to some music. I really missed having a premium sound system.
Ride Quality
There are virtually no differences between the two cars in terms of ride quality. They are both extremely fun to drive, and the suspension in the Model Y Standard feels perhaps a little bit stiffer than the Premium. Regardless, I didn’t truly notice all that much of a change.
Driving this car around windy roads and tight turns was just as fun as my Model Y Premium. It was a blast to test out, and the slight change in feel was welcome. It’s always fun to drive new cars.
Performance
This is the first EV I’ve ever ridden in where I did not feel that awesome sensation of instant torque. It’s still a quick car, but it is missing that pep in its step that many of us have become accustomed to.
If you want to get someone’s true reaction to EV acceleration, let me just put it this way: This is not the car to do it in.
Some Little-Known Facts About the Model Y Standard
Most of us know that the Model Y Standard has a glass roof, but it is opaque, so even if you took out the headliner, you still would not see out of it. However, there is an interesting little tidbit from a Service perspective that does not make much sense.
If the Model Y glass roof cracks or is broken and needs to be replaced, Service is required to pull off the entire headliner and topside interior to access the glass. It cannot be replaced from the outside. In the Premium, because the glass is exposed, it is a much simpler process to replace the glass. This was an interesting thing I learned.
Additionally, the seat controls are only available on the center screen, which makes it difficult to adjust the seat if you are larger than the person who sat in the car previously. In order to adjust the seat, you’ll have to lean over the chair, access the controls from the screen, and adjust it manually before getting in.
Is the Tesla Model Y Standard Worth the Cheaper Price?
For an additional $9,000 to buy the Model Y Premium AWD, you would get a more capable powertrain, a quieter cabin, better performance, an upgraded interior, more storage, a better sound system, and more luxury features.
To me, the Standard is a car that seems extremely ideal for a teenager’s first vehicle (I got a $1,500 1998 VW Jetta K2 with 200,000 miles when I was 16), or a fleet vehicle. This would be the perfect car for salespeople to use: it does not have all the bells and whistles, it is efficient, and it is just what is needed to drive around to meetings.
For a personal car, it really depends on what you think you need. Admittedly, I’ve been spoiled by the Premium configuration, and personally, I wouldn’t go down to the Standard after owning a Premium trim.
Tesla bear gets blunt with beliefs over company valuation
Tesla is making a change to its exterior cameras with a potential upgrade
