News
SpaceX customer reaffirms third Falcon Heavy mission’s Q2 2019 launch target
Taiwan’s National Space Organization (NSO) has reaffirmed a Q2 2019 launch target for SpaceX’s third-ever Falcon Heavy mission, a US Air Force-sponsored test launch opportunity known as Space Test Program 2 (STP-2).
Set to host approximately two dozen customer spacecraft, one of the largest and most monetarily significant copassengers riding on STP-2 is Formosat-7, a six-satellite Earth sensing constellation built with the cooperation of Taiwan’s NSO and the United States’ NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) for around $105M. If successfully launched, Formosat-7 will dramatically expand Taiwan’s domestic Earth observation and weather forecasting capabilities, important for a nation at high risk of typhoons and flooding rains.
Formosat-7, the latest generation of the series, is jointly developed by #Taiwan’s National Space Organization and the #US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration following an agreement signed in 2010. https://t.co/7hj2ijFutZ
— Asia Times (@asiatimesonline) January 7, 2019
Although Taiwan officials were unable to offer a target more specific than Q2 2019 (April to June), it’s understood by way of NASA comments and sources inside SpaceX that STP-2’s tentative launch target currently stands in April. For a number of reasons, chances are high that that ambitious launch target will slip into May or June. Notably, the simple fact that Falcon Heavy’s next two launches (Arabsat 6A and STP-2) are scheduled within just a few months of each other almost singlehandedly wipes out any possibility that both Heavy launches will feature all-new side and center boosters, strongly implying that whichever mission flies second will be launching on three flight-proven boosters.

To further ramp up the difficulty (and improbability), those three flight-proven Block 5 boosters would have to launch as an integrated Falcon Heavy, safely land (two by landing zone, one by drone ship), be transported to SpaceX facilities, and finally be refurbished and reintegrated for their second launch in no more than 30 to 120 days from start to finish. SpaceX’s record for Falcon 9 booster turnaround (the time between two launches) currently stands at 72 days for Block 4 hardware and 74 days for Block 5, meaning that the company could effectively need to simultaneously break its booster turnaround record three times in order to preserve a number of possible launch dates for both missions.
Look who was waving at passing planes over McGregor today!
A Falcon Heavy side booster on the McGregor test stand for a static fire test. pic.twitter.com/S7af6b0gHk
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) November 18, 2018
If it turns out the USAF is actually unwilling to fly its first Falcon Heavy mission on all flight-proven boosters (a strong possibility) or that that has never been the plan, STP-2’s claimed Q2 2019 target would likely have to slip several months into 2019. This would afford SpaceX more time and resources to build an extra three new Falcon Heavy boosters (two sides, one center), each of which requires a bare minimum of several weeks of dedicated production time and months of lead time (at least for the center core), all while preventing or significantly slowing the completed production of other new Falcon boosters.
The exact state of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Heavy production is currently unknown, with indications that the company might be building or have already finished core number B1055 or higher, but it’s safe to say that there is not exactly a lot of slack in the production lines in the first half of 2019. Most important, SpaceX likely needs to begin production of the human-rated Falcon 9 boosters that will ultimately launch the company’s first two crewed Crew Dragons as early as June and August, respectively.
- Falcon Heavy is seen here lifting off during its spectacular launch debut. (SpaceX)
- LZ-1 and LZ-2, circa February 2018. (SpaceX)
- A Falcon Heavy side booster was spotted eastbound in Arizona on November 10th. (Reddit – beast-sam)
- The second Falcon Heavy booster in four weeks was spotted Eastbound in Arizona by SpaceX Facebook group member Eric Schmidt on Dec. 3. (Eric Schmidt – Facebook)
- The second (and third) flight of Falcon Heavy is even closer to reality as a new side booster heads to Florida after finishing static fire tests in Texas. (Reddit /u/e32revelry)
- The next Falcon Heavy’s first side booster delivery was caught by several onlookers around December 21. (Instagram)
If the first Falcon 9 set to launch an uncrewed Crew Dragon (B1051) is anything to go off of, each human-rated Falcon 9 is put through an exceptionally time-consuming and strenuous range of tests to satisfy NASA’s requirements, requiring a considerable amount of extra resources (infrastructure, staff, time) to be produced and readied for launch. B1051 likely spent 3+ months in McGregor, Texas performing checks and one or several static fire tests, whereas a more normal Falcon booster typically spends no more than 3-6 weeks at SpaceX’s test facilities before shipping to its launch pad.
Ultimately, time will tell which hurdles the company’s executives (and hopefully engineers) have selected for its next two Falcon Heavy launches: an extraordinary feat of Falcon reusability or a Tesla-reminiscent period of Falcon production hell?
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!
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
News
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
News
Tesla to fix 219k vehicles in recall with simple software update
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.





