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
SpaceX and xAI tapped by Pentagon for autonomous drone contest
The six-month competition was launched in January and is said to carry a $100 million award.
SpaceX and its AI subsidiary xAI are reportedly competing in a new Pentagon prize challenge focused on autonomous drone swarming technology, as per a report from Bloomberg News.
The six-month competition was launched in January and is said to carry a $100 million award.
Bloomberg reported that SpaceX and xAI are among a select group invited to participate in the Defense Department’s effort to develop advanced drone swarming capabilities. The goal is reportedly to create systems that can translate voice commands into digital instructions and manage fleets of autonomous drones.
Neither SpaceX, xAI, nor the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit has commented on the report, and Reuters said it could not independently verify the details.
The development follows SpaceX’s recent acquisition of xAI, which pushed the valuation of the combined companies to an impressive $1.25 trillion. The reported competition comes as SpaceX prepares for a potential initial public offering later this year.
The Pentagon has been moving to speed up drone deployment and expand domestic manufacturing capacity, while also seeking tools to counter unauthorized drone activity around airports and major public events. Large-scale gatherings scheduled this year, including the FIFA World Cup and America250 celebrations, have heightened focus on aerial security.
The reported challenge aligns with broader Defense Department investments in artificial intelligence. Last year, OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, and xAI secured Pentagon contracts worth up to $200 million each to advance AI capabilities across defense applications.
Elon Musk previously joined AI and robotics researchers in signing a 2015 open letter calling for a ban on offensive autonomous weapons. In recent years, however, Musk has spoken on X about the strengths of drone technologies in combat situations.
News
Doug DeMuro names Tesla Model S the Most Important Car of the last 30 years
In a recent video, the noted reviewer stated that the choice was “not even a question.”
Popular automotive reviewer and YouTuber Doug DeMuro has named the 2012 Tesla Model S as the most important car of the last 30 years.
In a recent video, the noted reviewer stated that the choice was “not even a question,” arguing that the Model S did more to change the trajectory of the auto industry than any other vehicle released since the mid-1990s.
“Unquestionably in my mind, the number one most important car of the last 30 years… it’s not even a question,” DeMuro said. “The 2012 Tesla Model S. There is no doubt that that is the most important car of the last 30 years.”
DeMuro acknowledged that electric vehicle adoption has faced recent headwinds. Still, he maintained that long-term electrification is inevitable.
“If you’re a rational person who’s truthful with yourself, you know that the future is electric… whether it’s 10, 20, 30 years, the future will be electric, and it was the Model S that was the very first car that did that truthfully,” he said.
While earlier EVs like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt arrived before the Model S, DeMuro argued that they did not fundamentally shift public perception. The Model S proved that EVs “could be cool, could be fast, could be luxurious, could be for enthusiasts.” It showed that buyers did not have to make major compromises to drive electric.
He also described the Model S as a cultural turning point. Tesla became more than a car company. The brand expanded into Superchargers, home energy products, and a broader tech identity.
DeMuro noted that the Leaf and Volt “made a huge splash and taught us that it was possible.” However, he drew a distinction between being first and bringing a technology into the mainstream.
“It’s rarely about the car that does it first. It’s about the car that brings it into the mainstream,” he said. “The Model S was the car that actually won the game even though the Leaf and Volt scored the first.”
He added that perhaps the Model S’ most surprising achievement was proving that a new American automaker could succeed. For decades, industry observers believed the infrastructure and capital requirements made that nearly impossible.
“For decades, it was generally agreed that there would never be another competitive American car company because the infrastructure and the investment required to start up another American car company as just too challenging… It was just a given basically that you couldn’t do it. And not only did they go it, but they created a cultural icon… That car just truly changed the world,” he said.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk doubles down on Tesla Cybercab timeline once again
“Cybercab, which has no pedals or steering wheel, starts production in April,” Musk said.
CEO Elon Musk doubled down once again on the timeline of production for the Tesla Cybercab, marking yet another example of the confidence he has in the company’s ability to meet the aggressive timeline for the vehicle.
It is the third time in the past six months that Musk has explicitly stated Cybercab will enter production in April 2026.
On Monday morning, Musk reiterated that Cybercab will enter its initial manufacturing phase in April, and that it would not have any pedals or a steering wheel, two things that have been speculated as potential elements of the vehicle, if needed.
Cybercab, which has no pedals or steering wheel, starts production in April https://t.co/yShxZ2HJqp
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 16, 2026
Musk has been known to be aggressive with timelines, and some products have been teased for years and years before they finally come to fruition.
One of perhaps the biggest complaints about Musk is the fact that Tesla does not normally reach the deadlines that are set: the Roadster, Semi, and Unsupervised Full Self-Driving suite are a few of those that have been given “end of this year” timelines, but have not been fulfilled.
Nevertheless, many are able to look past this as part of the process. New technology takes time to develop, but we’d rather not hear about when, and just the progress itself.
However, the Cybercab is a bit different. Musk has said three times in the past six months that Cybercab will be built in April, and this is something that is sort of out of the ordinary for him.
In December 2025, he said that Tesla was “testing the production system” of the vehicle and that “real production ramp starts in April.
Elon Musk shares incredible detail about Tesla Cybercab efficiency
On January 23, he said that “Cybercab production starts in April.” He did the same on February 16, marking yet another occasion that Musk has his sights set on April for initial production of the vehicle.
Musk has also tempered expectations for the Cybercab’s initial production phase. In January, he noted that Cybercab would be subjected to the S-curve-type production speed:
“…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.”
Cybercab will be a huge part of Tesla’s autonomous ride-sharing plans moving forward.


