News
SpaceX and NASA deepen ties, NASA-sponsored reuse of Falcon 9 in discussion
NASA and SpaceX hosted a post-launch conference for the successful CRS-12 mission on Monday, revealing intriguing information about their plans and goals for the final months of 2017.
Dan Hartman of NASA and Hans Koenigsmann of SpaceX answered multiple questions from an audience of journalists regarding the future of SpaceX’s reusability program. Hans confirmed unofficial rumors that SpaceX’s Q4 2017 launch of SES-11 would utilize a flight-proven booster, likely one from a previous CRS mission. While this could mean either CRS-10 or CRS-11’s first stage, the most probable core is from CRS-10, numbered 1031.
-
- CRS-12 is the 39th time Falcon 9 has flown successfully. (NASA)
-
- With 41 attempts total, Falcon 9 has suffered two complete failures and one partial failure, giving a success rate of around 95%. (NASA)
Possibly even more exciting, Hartman acknowledged that NASA and SpaceX were deep into a process of data-gathering and sharing in an effort to certify flight-proven Falcon 9s for CRS missions in the future. While the implication was that this process is ongoing, Hartman suggested that a preliminary decision could be made before the end of September for SpaceX’s December 2017 launch of CRS-13, indicating that CRS-13 is a candidate for being the first NASA-sponsored reuse of a Falcon 9. Hartman repeatedly reiterated that NASA was currently expecting to fly CRS-13 on a new booster, but the undertone of the comments hinted that he was simply playing his and NASA’s cards close. In spite of the near-term uncertainty, Hartman stated that CRS reuse was “a matter of ‘when’”.
Intriguingly, while it was originally assumed that CRS-12 would feature titanium grid fins, it became clear that the vehicle sported traditional aluminum grid fins. This is likely a result of CRS-12’s recovery being low energy, and it is also reasonable to assume that SpaceX possesses an inventory of already-manufactured aluminum grid fins that they are now trying to avoid wasting.
NASA slipped a sly glimpse of Dragon 2 construction into their live coverage SpaceX’s CRS-12 launch. On the left is a Dragon 2 pressure vessel, vehicle’s “trunk” on the right. (NASA)
Asked about a decision for who the first two NASA crew would be on SpaceX’s Demo-2 flight in June of 2018, Hartman suggested that a decision could be made as early as next month, or September. However, several statements regarding the current status of SpaceX’s first Commercial Crew launches added a level of uncertainty to the conversation. Hartman said that he was hopeful SpaceX would be able to operationally begin flying crew to the ISS as soon as FY2019, which begins October 1, 2018. However, he suggested that NASA was interested in SpaceX flying Dragon 2 solely with cargo “to get some more flights under its belt” ahead of “routine” crew transport. While difficult to reconcile those statements with a publicly acknowledged goal of February and June 2018 for SpaceX’s first demonstration flights of Dragon 2, it is clear that both groups are working incredibly hard to solidify those dates and prepare Dragon 2 for its first flight or flights next year.
For the last four and a half months of 2017, Hans confirmed that SpaceX will attempt to continue to pursue a cadence similar to that seen in the first half of the year. Musk’s indication of 12 launches for the rest of the year appear to be plausible, Falcon Heavy included. Publicly available manifest information currently shows that SpaceX has another launch scheduled for the West Coast on August 24th, with two more launches tentatively penciled in for September, one in October, three in November, and four in December. Changes are inevitable given the ever-shifting nature of the launch industry, but 22 launch year does look to be achievable for SpaceX, particularly once the company has two Eastern launch pads up and running.
Catch the post-launch briefing in its entirety below.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
