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!
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
