News
SpaceX wins US Air Force contract for Falcon Heavy launch
In an unexpected bode of confidence in the nascent vehicle, SpaceX has competed for and won a $130 million US Air Force launch contract for the massive Falcon Heavy rocket. While not planned to occur until September 2020 at the earliest, the most critical aspect of this development is the fact that the USAF has apparently already certified Falcon Heavy for high-value military launches.
The almost knee-jerk certification of Falcon Heavy for USAF launches makes for an extraordinary contrast when compared with the certification of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 workhorse rocket, a tedious political minefield that took more than two years, led SpaceX to (successfully) sue the federal government, and forced the Air Force to critically reexamine its internal processes after they delayed SpaceX’s certification by six or more months. For that particular endeavor, the USAF required SpaceX to complete three successful Falcon 9 launches, while also preventing SpaceX from engaging in launch contract competitions until their launch vehicle was certified in May 2015.
#SpaceX has won a competitively-awarded #AirForce launch contract for the AFSPC-52 flight. The mission will utilize a #FalconHeavy rocket. Mission will launch by Sept. 2020 from LC-39A at Kennedy Space Center. Statement from Gwynne Shotwell below… pic.twitter.com/a5ka2ov20L
— Chris G (@ChrisG_SpX) June 21, 2018
Jump ahead to 2018 and SpaceX appears to have been allowed to compete for this particular mission – known cryptically as AFSPC-52 – before Falcon Heavy had so much as completed an integrated static fire test. The awe-inspiring rocket did, however, complete a nearly-flawless debut launch in February 2018, a mission that required the company’s Falcon upper stage to survive a lengthy (6+ hour) coast in orbit before igniting its Merlin vacuum engine for one final burn. Regardless of the specifics, many of which have likely been kept under wraps, the Air Force must have been quite impressed with the rocket’s debut performance, and Falcon Heavy has now – according to President and COO Gwynne Shotwell – been certified for USAF missions just four months later.
- Falcon 9 Block 5 completed its first launch on May 11, carrying the Bangabandhu-1 communications satellite to geostationary transfer orbit. (Tom Cross)
- Falcon Heavy clears the top of the strongback in a spectacular fashion. Two of the rocket’s three manifested missions are now for the USAF. (Tom Cross)
It’s somewhere between difficult and impossible to accurately compare the different payloads and launches of the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), but SpaceX’s only competitor ULA was awarded a contract for the launch of two relatively different AFSPC payloads at an average (fixed) cost of $175 million per mission. Those satellites were likely much smaller than AFSPC-52 but they require direct insertion into geostationary orbit (GEO), whereas AFSPC-52 may instead be sent to a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) before circularizing the orbit under its own power.
Still, SpaceX’s triple-booster Falcon Heavy launch contract will cost the USAF a slim $130m. It’s worth noting that the 2018 AFSPC-8 and -12 contracts awarded to ULA were for the company’s single-booster Atlas 5 rocket, with most of the draw coming from its admittedly advanced, efficient, and extraordinarily reliable Centaur upper stage, tasked with reigniting repeatedly to circularize the orbit of its valuable satellite payloads once in space.
While it requires far less rigor than the Air Force’s more secretive, national security-sensitive satellite launches, SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy launch – this time with three highly-reusable Block 5 boosters – will also be conducted with the military branch as the primary customer. Known as Space Test Mission-2 (STP-2), Falcon Heavy will be tasked with carrying a stack of dozens of different smallsats to a variety of orbits. Of note, the vast majority of that mission’s payload comes in the form of a 5000-kilogram ballast mass, included because the mission was manifested on Falcon Heavy (instead of the operational Falcon 9) for the sole purpose of facilitating the rocket’s rapid certification for critical Air Force missions.
- Falcon Heavy may look for more condensed than Delta Heavy, but its performance dramatically outclasses the ULA rocket in all but the highest-energy mission profiles. (SpaceX)
- The fully-integrated Falcon Heavy rolls out to Pad 39A. For vertical integration, think of this… but vertical. (SpaceX)
STP-2 is currently scheduled for no earlier than (NET) November 2018, while the third launch of Falcon Heavy – the commercial Arabsat 6A communications satellite – is tentatively targeted for December, although it’s almost guaranteed to slip into Q1 2019.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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.



