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
Elon Musk
Elon Musk shares insights on SpaceX and Tesla’s potential scale
In a pair of recent posts on X, Musk argued that both companies operate in domains where growth is not linear, but exponential.
Elon Musk outlined why he believes Tesla and SpaceX ultimately dwarf their competitors, pointing to autonomy, robotics, and space-based energy as forces that fundamentally reshape economic scale.
In a pair of recent posts on X, Musk argued that both companies operate in domains where growth is not linear, but exponential.
Space-based energy
In a response to a user on X who observed that SpaceX has a larger valuation than all six US defense companies combined, Musk explained that space-based industries will eventually surpass the total economic value of Earth. He noted that space allows humanity to harness roughly 100,000 times more energy than Earth currently uses, while still consuming less than a millionth of the Sun’s total energy output.
That level of available energy should enable the emergence and development of industries that are simply not possible within Earth’s physical and environmental constraints. Continuous solar exposure in space, as per Musk’s comment, removes limitations imposed by atmosphere, weather, and land availability.
Autonomy and robots
In a follow-up post, Elon Musk explaned that “due to autonomy, Tesla is worth more than the rest of the auto industry.” Musk added that this assessment does not yet account for Optimus, Tesla’s humanoid robot. As per the CEO, once Optimus reaches scaled production, it could increase Earth’s gross domestic product by an order of magnitude, ultimately paving the way for sustainable abundance.
Even before the advent of Optimus, however, Tesla’s autonomous driving system already gives vehicles the option to become revenue-generating assets through services like the Tesla Robotaxi network. Tesla’s autonomous efforts seem to be on the verge of paying off, as services like the Robotaxi network have already been launched in its initial stages in Austin and the Bay Area.
News
Tesla Cybercab undergoes winter testing as Elon Musk reiterates production start date
CEO Elon Musk confirmed the timeline in a recent post on X, while Tesla’s official social media accounts separately revealed that Cybercab prototypes are now undergoing winter testing in Alaska.
Tesla has reiterated that production of its fully autonomous Cybercab is set to begin in April, even as the company continues expanding real-world testing of the vehicle.
CEO Elon Musk confirmed the timeline in a recent post on X, while Tesla’s official social media accounts separately revealed that Cybercab prototypes are now undergoing winter testing in Alaska.
Musk confirms April Cybercab initial production
In a post on X, Musk reiterated that Cybercab production is scheduled to begin in April, reiterating his guidance about the vehicle’s manufacturing timeline. Around the same time, Tesla shared images showing the Cybercab undergoing cold-weather testing in Alaska. Interestingly enough, the Cybercab prototypes being tested in Alaska seemed to be equipped with snow tires.
Winter testing in Alaska suggests Tesla is preparing the Cybercab for deployment across a wide range of climates in the United States. Cold temperatures, snow, ice, and reduced traction present some of the most demanding scenarios for autonomous systems, making Alaska a logical proving ground for a vehicle designed to operate without a human driver.
Taken together, Musk’s production update and Tesla’s testing post indicate that while the Cybercab is nearing the start of manufacturing, validation efforts are still actively ramping to ensure reliability in real-world environments.
What early Cybercab production might look like
Musk has previously cautioned that the start of Cybercab manufacturing will be slow, reflecting the challenges of launching an all-new vehicle platform. In a recent comment, Musk said initial production typically follows an S-curve, with early output constrained by how many new parts and processes are involved.
According to Musk, both Cybercab and Optimus fall into this category, as “almost everything is new.” As a result, early production rates are expected to be very deliberate before eventually accelerating rapidly as manufacturing processes mature.
“Initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
Tesla will increase its Full Self-Driving subscription price, meaning it will eventually be more than the current $99 per month price tag it has right now.
Already stating that the ability to purchase the suite outright will be removed, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this week that the Full Self-Driving subscription price would increase when its capabilities improve:
“I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve. The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD).”
This was an expected change, especially as Tesla has been hinting for some time that it is approaching a feature-complete version of Full Self-Driving that will no longer require driver supervision. However, with the increase, some are concerned that they may be priced out.
$99 per month is already a tough ask for some. While Full Self-Driving is definitely worth it just due to the capabilities, not every driver is ready to add potentially 50 percent to their car payment each month to have it.
While Tesla has not revealed any target price for FSD, it does seem that it will go up to at least $150.
I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve.
The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD). https://t.co/YDKhXN3aaG
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2026
Additionally, the ability to purchase the suite outright is also being eliminated on February 14, which gives owners another reason to be slightly concerned about whether they will be able to afford to continue paying for Full Self-Driving in any capacity.
Some owners have requested a tiered program, which would allow people to pay for the capabilities they want at a discounted price.
Unsupervised FSD would be the most expensive, and although the company started removing Autopilot from some vehicles, it seems a Supervised FSD suite would still attract people to pay between $49 and $99 per month, as it is very useful.
Tesla will likely release pricing for the Unsupervised suite when it is available, but price increases could still come to the Supervised version as things improve.
This is not the first time Musk has hinted that the price would change with capability improvements, either. He’s been saying it for some time. In 2020, he even said the value of FSD would “probably be somewhere in excess of $100,000.”
The FSD price will continue to rise as the software gets closer to full self-driving capability with regulatory approval. It that point, the value of FSD is probably somewhere in excess of $100,000.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2020
Elon Musk shares insights on SpaceX and Tesla’s potential scale
Tesla Cybercab undergoes winter testing as Elon Musk reiterates production start date
