News
SpaceX’s spectacular USSF-67 Falcon Heavy launch in photos
On January 15th, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket lifted off for the second time in 75 days to launch another batch of US military payloads into orbits tens of thousands of kilometers above Earth’s surface.
Six and a half hours later, the US Space Systems Command (SSC) confirmed that Falcon Heavy had again completed the exceptionally difficult launch without issue. To deliver the USSF-67 mission’s payloads directly to geosynchronous orbit (GSO), the giant SpaceX rocket had to sacrifice one of its potentially reusable boosters and complete a complex six-hour ballet of rolls, burns, and spacecraft deployments. And for the second time in a row, Falcon Heavy did so without apparent issue.
In an SSC press release [PDF], Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, said that the group “had another fantastic launch today on a Falcon Heavy.” He added that “while the launch itself was impressive,” he was “most proud of the fact that we placed important [national] capabilities into space.” And an impressive launch it certainly was.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
A Falcon (Heavy) spectacle
As previously discussed, USSF-67 was Falcon Heavy’s first twilight launch. The extraordinary cadence of SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, which Falcon Heavy is derived from, caused twilight launches and the incredible light shows they can produce to become a fairly routine phenomena. But just under five years after its February 2018 debut, there had still never been a Falcon Heavy launch ‘jellyfish’ or ‘nebula.’ That thankfully changed on Sunday.
The rocket lifted off just ten or so minutes after sunset and soared into the fading purple skies. Those skies were still relatively bright at ground-level, reducing the amount of contrast, but the resulting light show was still spectacular as Falcon Heavy and its immense exhaust plume ascended back into the sunlight. The artificial sunrise lit up that pillar-like plume with the colors of sunrise and, eventually, bright daylight.
Close-up views enabled by tracking telescopes captured the true drama, which began shortly after Falcon Heavy’s twin side boosters separated from the rocket’s main core stage and upper stage, flipped around, and ignited their engines to fly back to the Florida coast they’d only just lifted off from. As the nine-engine center core continued towards space, each booster fired up one and then three Merlin 1D engines for their boostback burns.
A view from Astronomy Live captured the moment of boostback burn ignition, during which the side boosters visibly blasted ‘craters’ the Falcon Heavy center core’s much more powerful plume. As those plumes interacted, the fluid dynamics and light produced by multiple Merlin 1D engines combined to create chaotic whisps of orange, red, and yellow – akin to an exploding nebula. The moments prior were also spectacular as the two side boosters, lit up by direct sunlight against the nearly black sky, began gently floating away from the center core and spinning around with bursts from several nitrogen gas thrusters – a brief moment of serenity before the violence of engine ignition.
On a chariot of fire
But as Maj. Gen. Purdy noted, the purpose of USSF-67 – spectacle aside – was to carry a number of important payloads into orbit.
“After both side boosters touched down, SpaceX ended its live coverage at the request of the Space Force, reiterating the mission’s secretive customer and nature. The USSF hasn’t confirmed much about the USSF-67 mission’s payloads, but Falcon Heavy is known to be carrying a geostationary communications relay satellite called CBAS-2 and likely built by Boeing. CBAS-2 is joined by Northrop Grumman’s third Long Duration Propulsive EELV or LDPE-3A, a combination of a propulsive kick stage and a satellite. LDPE-3A is carrying a collection of rideshare satellites and payloads and is designed to operate for months in orbit. Using USSF-44 as a guide, the total USSF-67 payload could weigh roughly 3.75 to 4.75 tons (8,250-10,500 lb).”
Teslarati.com – January 15th, 2023
The same SSC press release provides more detail, noting that LDPE-3A carries two hosted payloads – Catcher and WASSAT. Catcher is a space weather instrument developed by the Aerospace Corporation, while WASSAT is a prototype [PDF] of a wide-angle observation instrument designed to track other satellites in GSO. LDPE is also hosting “three payloads developed by the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (SRCO),” including “two operational prototypes for enhanced situational awareness, and an operational prototype crypto/interface encryption payload providing secure space-to-ground communications capability.”
Two down, one to go
For Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064 and B1065, both of which supported USSF-44 and USSF-67, their missions are far from over. Their second successful side-by-side landing has cleared the boosters to be reused on a third US military launch called USSF-52. Originally known as AFSPC-52, the mission was Falcon Heavy’s first operational US military launch contract and the first time the rocket beat competitor United Launch Alliance (ULA) during a competitive procurement.
Next Spaceflight reports that USSF-52 is scheduled to launch no earlier than April 10th, 2023, less than three months from now. Once that mission is complete, Falcon Heavy will have no more US military missions on contract, although more will almost certainly be rewarded sooner than later. USSF-52 is sandwiched between two other Falcon Heavy launches. Next Spaceflight also reports that Falcon Heavy could launch the ViaSat-3 communications satellite as early as March 2023 and the Jupiter-3 (EchoStar 24) communications satellite as early as May 2023, making for a busy 90 days.
For that trio to happen as scheduled, SpaceX will have to beat Falcon Heavy’s record 75-day turnaround, which has coincidentally (?) occurred twice: first between Arabsat 6A and STP-2, and again between USSF-44 and USSF-67. Including USSF-67, SpaceX has up to five Falcon Heavy launches scheduled this year.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
