News
SpaceX settles on Thursday for first Falcon 9 launch of 2021
After a few days of delays, SpaceX appears to have settled on Thursday, January 7th for the first of several dozen Falcon 9 launches planned in 2021.
Originally scheduled to launch as early as January 4th, SpaceX’s Turksat 5A communications satellite launch was “placed TBD due to mission assurance” on January 1st – an unfortunate catch-all euphemism often used by launch providers in lieu of any real explanation for delays. Regardless, Next Spaceflight reports that Turksat 5A will be Falcon 9 B1060’s fourth launch, a milestone the first stage (booster) has reached just six months after its first flight.
Despite the minor delay, SpaceX’s current target of four launches this month is still well within reach even though the slip exemplifies the uphill battle the company will face as it aims to achieve CEO Elon Musk’s goal of 48 launches in 2021. Weather is currently 60% favorable for SpaceX’s first launch of the year and Turksat 5A is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 8:28 pm EST on January 7th (01:28 UTC, 8 Jan).
Good timing, too — the 45th said SpaceX’s next launch of Turksat was “placed TBD due to mission assurance.”— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 1, 2021
New forecast (60% favorable) and hazard area: pic.twitter.com/cEapdSd2DP— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 5, 2021
Unfortunately, SpaceX’s first launch of the new year has been steeped in unprecedented controversy for the company, including the first-ever instance of mass-protests at its Hawthorne, California factory and headquarters. The reason: Turksat 5A, while partially meant for civilian communications, will also support the Turkish military, which supported Azerbaijan after the country – unprovoked – reignited a long-simmering conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in September 2020.
Stemming from events that transpired over the last several centuries, Armenian-Azeri conflict and Turkish involvement are extraordinarily complex and messy. In the 1910s and 1920s, Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) infamously committed atrocities against Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek communities within its occupied territory in a process of “Turkification”, systematically killing 1-3 million people in what would ultimately be labeled genocide. In a separate but related conflict, Turkey eventually chose to support Azerbaijan’s claim to the ethnically (75-90%) and historically Armenian territory, backing the country against Armenia in the first Nagorno-Karabakh War in the 1990s.
Azerbaijan reignited the conflict in 2020, resulting in the deaths of at least 6000 combatants and civilians on both sides and ultimately securing a substantial portion of Nagorno-Karabakh territory as part of a November 2020 ceasefire agreement. To an extent, Nagorno-Karabakh’s borders are now more or less back to where they were before the first war in the 1990s. While an avoidable loss of life is inherently deplorable, it’s extremely difficult to say whether Azerbaijan was justified but it and Turkey’s history of systematic and discriminatory hostility towards Armenians leaves little benefit of the doubt worth giving.
Ultimately, that cloud of ambiguity makes it hard to directly fault SpaceX for choosing to launch Turksat 5A or for its contracts to launch Turksat 5B and future domestically-built satellites. Additionally, if SpaceX should be criticized for willingly launching the satellite, Airbus – contracted by Turkey to build Turksat 5A – is at least as worthy of critique but has yet to be included at all in protest discourse despite the fact that Turkey’s production contract was publicly announced in 2017.
In the history of spaceflight, a satellite that is completed but never launches is all but unheard of, as the inherent bureaucratic and financial inertia behind a launch campaign mere months away from its scheduled liftoff is obviously immense. Even if SpaceX were to accept major financial penalties and back out of its contract, Arianespace, Roscosmos, or ULA would assuredly accept any replacement contract.
For protestors still set on making an impact, the shrewd move would be to redirect attention on future Turkish satellite projects like Turksat 5B, 6A, and beyond with the intention of killing contracts in the cradle – a far more tenable goal.
Stay tuned for more launch details as SpaceX nears its first mission of 2021.
News
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.
A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.
The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.
Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.
“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.
According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.
“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.
Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.
However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.
To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.
That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.
News
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems.
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report.
While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.
In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.
According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”
Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.
Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line.
News
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, coding shows
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, one of which is widely requested by owners and fans, and another that it has already started to make on some trim levels of other models within the lineup.
The changes appear to be taking effect in the European and Chinese markets, but these are expected to come to the United States based on what Tesla has done with the Model Y.
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
These changes in the coding were spotted by X user BERKANT, who shared the findings on the social media platform this morning:
🚨 Model 3 changes spotted in Tesla backend
• New interior code: IN3PB (Interior 3 Premium Black)
• Linked to Alcantara-style black headliner
• Mapped to 2026 Model 3 Performance and Premium VINs• EPC now shows: “Display_16_QHD”
• Multiple 2026 builds marked with… pic.twitter.com/OkDM5EdbTu— BERKANT (@Tesla_NL_TR) February 23, 2026
It appears these new upgrades will roll out with the Model 3 Performance and Tesla’s Premium trim levels of the all-electric sedan.
The changes are welcome. Tesla fans have been requesting that its Model 3 and Model Y offerings receive a black headliner, as even with the black interior options, the headliner is grey.
Tesla recently upgraded Model Y vehicles to this black headliner option, even in the United States, so it seems as if the Model 3 will get the same treatment as it appears to be getting in the Eastern hemisphere.
Tesla has been basically accentuating the Model 3 and Model Y with small upgrades that owners have been wanting, and it has been a focal point of the company’s future plans as it phases out other vehicles like the Model S and Model X.
Additionally, Tesla offered an excellent 0.99% APR last week on the Model 3, hoping to push more units out the door to support a strong Q1 delivery figure at the beginning of April.
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
