News
What’s causing SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy delays?
Although uncertainty in the schedule remains, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket appears to be nearly ready for its first engine ignition test (called a ‘static fire’) sometime within the next week or so.
An attempt at 1 PM EST today, January 16, was canceled for unspecified reasons, although Kennedy Space Center reportedly maintained the usual roadblock to prevent vehicles from driving past, implying that SpaceX still intends to conduct propellant loading tests with Falcon Heavy. It was noted earlier this morning by spaceflight journalist Chris Bergin that things were “a bit too quiet” if a test was indeed planned for today, and his intuition appears to have been correct. It still remains the case that Falcon Heavy is an experimental and untested rocket to an extent, and these delays are to be expected as SpaceX works out the inevitable kinks and bugs that arise during the extensive testing big launch vehicle has been and is still being put through.
KSC is in roadblock stance, so they will still do some testing it would seem, but we will have to wait for the Static Fire itself. https://t.co/DxzsRn85NR
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) January 16, 2018
Due to range requirements in support of an upcoming launch of the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas 5 rocket, currently NET Thursday, SpaceX has postponed the static fire of Falcon Heavy without a replacement date. It is unlikely that another attempt will occur before the upcoming weekend, but SpaceX should have at least a solid week of uninterrupted range support once ULA’s launch occurs, hopefully without delay. Godspeed to ULA, in the meantime.
The crazy complexity of rocketry
Most recently, and perhaps somewhat related to Falcon Heavy’s static fire delays, SpaceX completed as many as two complete wet dress rehearsals (WDRs), which saw Falcon Heavy topped off with full tanks of its cryogenic (super cool) liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade jet fuel (RP-1). In essence, the rocket became equivalent to several hundred tons of carefully stabilized explosive. Nominally, these rehearsals appear entirely uneventful to an outside observer, with little more than ice formation and the occasional bursts of propellant tank vents to suggest that something important is occurring. However, anomalies like the failure of Falcon 9 during the Amos-6 static fire provide a staggering demonstration of just how explosive and sensitive a rocket’s fuel is, and Falcon Heavy has approximately three times the fuel capacity of Falcon 9. Empty, Falcon 9’s mass has been estimated to be around 30 metric tons, a minuscule amount of structure in the face of the more than 500 metric tons of propellant the vehicle carries at liftoff.
These propellant loading tests can also be challenging for reasons aside from their highly explosive nature. Due to basic realities of the physical nature of metal, the predominate ingredient for Falcon 9’s load-bearing structures, metallic structures shrink under extreme cold (and expand under heating). In the case of Falcon 9’s massive 45 meters (150 foot) tall first stage, the scale of this contraction can be on the order of several inches or more, particularly given SpaceX’s predilection towards cooling their propellant as much as possible to increase its energy density. For Falcon 9, these issues (thermodynamic loads) are less severe. However, add in three relatively different first stage boosters linked together with several extremely strong supports at both their tops and bottoms and that dynamic loading can become a fickle beast. The expansion or compression of materials due to temperature changes can create absolutely astounding amounts of pressure – if you’ve ever forgotten a glass bottled drink in the freezer and discovered it violently exploded at some future point, you’ll have experienced this yourself.
With several inches of freedom and the possibility that each Falcon Heavy booster might contract or expand slightly differently, these forces could understandably wreak havoc with the high precision necessary for the huge rocket to properly connect with the launch pad’s ground systems that transmit propellant, fluids, and telemetry back and forth. Information from two reliable Kennedy Space Center sources experienced with the reality of operating rockets, as well as NASASpaceflight.com, suggested that issues with dynamic loads (such as those created by thermal contraction/expansion) are a likely explanation for the delays, further evidenced by their observations that much of the pad crew’s attention appeared to be focused at the base of Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL). The TEL base hosts the clamps that hold the rocket down during static fires and launches, as well as the Tail Service Masts (TSMs) that connect with the Falcon 9/Heavy to transport propellant and data to the first stage(s). These connection points are both relatively tiny, mechanically sensitive, and absolutely critical for the successful operation of the rocket, and thus are a logical point of failure in the event of off-nominal or unpredicted levels of dynamic stresses.
-
- The white bars in this photo are half of Falcon Heavy’s seperation mechanism. A number of actuators take the place of the more common solid rocket motors used with vehicles like the Delta IV Heavy. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s three boosters and 27 Merlin 1D engines on full display. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy. Modeled and rendered by NASASpaceflight forum user WBY1984. (WBY1984)
Test, launch, land, repeat.
All things considered, these difficulties demonstrate that even after months (even years) of relentless modeling, testing, remodeling, and retesting, rockets (and especially huge rockets like Falcon Heavy) are immensely complex, and even tiny mistakes can lead the vehicle to stray from its expected behavior. Quite simply, the reality of engineering only truly comes into play once hardware is fully in the loop, and it’s in this state that SpaceX has demonstrated again and again a distinct and elegant ability to learn from their hardware, rather than attempt to salve uncertainty with a neurotic and counterproductive level of statistical analysis, modelling, and documentation. The agile launch company still dabbles in those aspects when beneficial or necessary, but testing comes first in its importance.
The conclusion here, then, is that Falcon Heavy’s delays betray this aspect of SpaceX – a launch company that loves its fans, but also understands the need for cautious testing when it comes to new and untried rocket hardware. Whether Falcon Heavy succeeds or fails, SpaceX will learn from the proceedings, and they will be better off for it (although maybe less so financially…).
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
After launching in Austin, Texas, last week, Tesla is looking to expand the Cybercab to new parts of the United States in an effort that will see the driverless, steering wheel-less, and pedal-less vehicle chauffeur people around as part of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service.
However, the expansion will go far beyond the United States, and CEO Elon Musk revealed he hopes Europe will be the next market where Cybercab will be operational.
Musk has publicly expressed hope that Tesla’s Cybercab robotaxi will reach Europe in the near future.
On September 8, Tesla’s Chief Executive quoted a German rider who had just completed a trip in Austin, Texas, and wrote that he hoped the vehicle would not take years to arrive in Germany. Musk replied with a short but notable message: “Hopefully soon in Europe too.”
Hopefully soon in Europe too https://t.co/vqQ69bLJuN
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2026
The comment arrived only days after Tesla opened Cybercab ride-hailing to the public in Austin. The two-seat vehicle has no steering wheel or pedals and relies entirely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software. Early passengers have described the rides as quiet, smooth, and more stylish than competing robotaxis such as Waymo.
Austin is currently the only city where members of the public can hail a Cybercab through Tesla’s Robotaxi app. The initial fleet is small; Texas registration records show only a few dozen of the purpose-built vehicles on the road.
Tesla set to open Cybercab rides to the public, with no steering wheel or pedals
Tesla has also been operating a larger number of conventional Model Y robotaxis in the same area, but the Cybercab itself represents the company’s first dedicated, controls-free taxi design.
Europe presents a different regulatory picture. The European Union does not permit manufacturers to self-certify vehicles the way Tesla did in the United States.
Type-approval rules and a small-series limit of 1,500 automated vehicles per type per year apply across the bloc.
Supervised Full Self-Driving has gained provisional approval in several member states through national recognition of Dutch certification, yet unsupervised robotaxi operation remains a separate and more distant step. Tesla has not announced a European launch city, date, or approval pathway for the Cybercab.
Musk himself has previously cautioned that the company does not control European regulators. In an earnings call earlier in 2026, he noted that even supervised FSD took an “immense amount of time” to clear and that unsupervised service would be “somewhat at the mercy of the governments in Europe and the EU.”
The latest social-media remark therefore functions more as an expression of intent than a timetable.
If the Cybercab eventually reaches European streets, it would mark a significant expansion of Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions beyond the United States. For now, the vehicle remains an Austin-only experience, and the gap between Musk’s hope and actual deployment will be decided by regulators rather than by engineering alone.
Tesla Cybercab might have just rolled out to the public as it entered the company’s Robotaxi suite in Austin this past week. However, the vehicle might already be on its way to becoming even better, as the company is asking riders to describe what they’d like to see improved with the Cybercab.
Tesla sent a rider experience survey to Cybercab passengers only days after paid rides began in Austin. The questionnaire asks how satisfied riders were with the overall trip. Then it requests star ratings for availability and wait time, door functionality, vehicle touchscreen, mobile app experience, seat comfort, interior space, ride comfort, cleanliness, and cargo space.
A later section asks which features riders would most like to have and allows selection of up to three items from a list that includes heated seats, ventilated seats, fully reclining seats, a tray table, a wireless phone charger, a better sound system, and more storage. Respondents may also choose none of these or write in another idea. The survey closes with a recommendation score from zero to ten.
Tesla just sent out a Cybercab rider experience survey so you can give feedback to the team. pic.twitter.com/YsU5OYdAjW
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 8, 2026
This rapid request for input illustrates Tesla’s habit of treating early users as collaborators rather than mere customers. The company has long refined vehicles through software updates and hardware changes informed by real-world use across its passenger cars.
Collecting structured opinions so soon after commercial service started shows the same mindset applied to a purpose-built autonomous taxi. The questions themselves reveal an openness to cabin changes even after the first vehicles reached public streets, which is no surprise.
Tesla has always hoped to cater a great experience to anyone in its vehicles, which is why so many fan-requested features have made it into its vehicles.
Replies already circulating online favor reclining seats, tray tables, wireless charging, improved audio, and extra room when seats fold back.
Tesla Cybercabs narrowly miss deadly Amazon cargo plane crash
Those preferences point toward comfort upgrades that Tesla can implement in later production batches or through cabin revisions. Because the Cybercab is designed around software first principles, many requested amenities can arrive faster than in traditional automakers.
Tesla’s willingness to survey riders immediately after launch therefore makes near-term cabin and experience improvements likely as the team reviews responses and iterates toward a more refined robotaxi people will choose daily.
Tesla Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill revealed the company has made several changes to the all-electric pickup, which he calls a “living thing, constantly evolving and improving.”
Cybertruck is manufactured at Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas just outside of Austin, and over the past few years, Tesla has continued to make small changes to the pickup to improve everything from cost, reliability, serviceablility, and manufacturability.
“The finish line isn’t getting to production. A product is a living thing, constantly evolving and improving,” Morrill added.
RELATED:
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
Some of those changes are yet to be revealed, but perhaps the most notable one was the change Tesla made to the aero shield that sits underneath the truck. In the past, it was aluminum, but now the Cybertruck is using a self-reinforcing polypropylene.
Morrill said that the polypropylene is “stretched into fibers and then laminated into the form,” and is much more durable, much lighter, and significantly cheaper than aluminum when it is manufactured this way.
It also enabled some improvements in the geometry of the Cybertruck, improving the manufacturing around the bolts and edges, in addition to minor form changes. These all benefitted the Cybertruck in more ways than one: specifically with durability and improved drag.
I was surprised by how interested people were to find out we made a relatively benign change to the Cybertruck aero shield, a part of the car most people never even see. So I’ll share some more details.
Here are two photos, the left is one of the latest trucks off the… pic.twitter.com/F5cZo2CZKf
— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 7, 2026
Typically, Teslas are not necessarily identified by model year because these changes are fluid and occur when the company sees fit to implement them. It is not like other automotive companies, which usually make sweeping manufacturing changes when building a new model year.
Instead, Teslas are recognized by their “generation” or “era.” For example, those with a newer Model Y might refer to their car as a “Juniper.” This is the same with Model 3, as many refer to the new body style as the “Highland.”
Tesla’s manufacturing changes are proof of the company’s constant need to improve its products and move things forward with its vehicles. There is no need to drag one’s feet and wait until next year if the product can be made better right now, and that’s precisely what Tesla did with the Cybertruck.
Elon Musk hints at Tesla Cybercab’s next market
Tesla Cybercab improvements are already on the minds of company engineers
