News
Elon Musk reveals SpaceX Falcon 9 survived a water landing test
Following the picture-perfect launch of GovSat-1 on Wednesday afternoon, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter with an extremely unusual bit of news. After separating from the second stage, events relating to Falcon 9’s first stage recovery operations were heard live in the background of SpaceX’s live coverage, leading to some additional intrigue around an already odd situation.
B1032, a flight-proven (reused) booster tasked with launching GovSat-1 on its second mission, was seen with landing legs and grid fins on its sooty exterior – a confusing appearance due to SpaceX’s statement that the core would be expended into the ocean after launch. Thankfully, Elon Musk’s tweets provide at least the beginning of an answer for the several oddities.
This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived. We will try to tow it back to shore. pic.twitter.com/hipmgdnq16
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 31, 2018
As stated above, GovSat-1’s Falcon 9 booster (1032) was apparently being used to test an exceptionally aggressive landing burn in lieu of a drone ship beneath it. The lack of drone ship begins to make more sense with the added knowledge that 1032 was testing experimental landing procedures: in the relatively likely eventuality that something went wrong, the massive booster would have likely impacted Of Course I Still Love You at an extremely high velocity. Similar impacts have occurred before as SpaceX gradually perfected the new technologies and operational knowledge necessary to recover orbital-class rockets, but a basic understanding of rocketry implies that 1032’s OCISLY impact would have been uniquely destructive, likely taking the ship out of action for at least several weeks of repairs.
This would pose an inherent problem for the imminent launch of Falcon Heavy, with the center of three first stages currently scheduled to attempt a landing aboard the very same drone ship in less than a week. Under optimum conditions (sans huge explosions and general destruction), OCISLY and its entourage of support vessels simply could not complete the journey back to Port Canaveral and the subsequent return to sea that would have been necessary to recovery both GovSat-1 and Falcon Heavy’s center core. Add in the potential need for repairs and expending GovSat-1 was a no-brainer for the launch company: Falcon Heavy’s center core could easily see at least one additional launch after it is recovered, whereas the twice-used 1032 effectively reached the end of its useful life after it separated from the second stage and GovSat payload earlier today.
Falcon 9 1038 aboard Just Read The Instructions after the launch of Formosat-5. (SpaceX)
As a result, SpaceX appears to have continued a trend of exploiting flight test opportunities to the greatest extent practicable by tasking B1032 with an experimental landing attempt. More specifically, Elon quickly added that the landing burn attempted by 1032 involved the ignition of three of the booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines during landing, whereas all SpaceX landings up to this point have occurred with a single Merlin 1D ignition. While the company already routinely utilizes three engines during some boostback and reentry burns, landing burns have always featured a single engine. However, by using three engines, it is entirely possible that SpaceX hopes to eventually move towards even more aggressive landing burns. While the obvious downsides likely include difficulty maintaining control and increased stresses on the booster, the benefits are also pretty inherent. By using more engines, the length of the landing burn could be drastically shortened, resulting in far more efficient propellant usage by minimizing losses to gravity (every second the rocket is trying to go upwards is a second fighting against Earth’s gravity, which pulls the rocket down at ~9.8 meters/second squared).
Incredibly, the booster somehow managed to pull off that three engine landing burn with some success, made apparent by the fact that it is intact and floating in the Atlantic, with some hope of being towed back to land. This is almost certainly the first time SpaceX has ever successfully landed a booster in the ocean without a subsequent breakup, an incredible achievement for a rocket that likely experienced exceptional stresses during reentry and landing. Time will tell how this impacts SpaceX’s future recovery efforts, but it is certainly promising as a method of extracting just a little extra performance from reusable Falcon 9s. In other words, future Falcon 9 missions might be able to carry heavier payloads into higher orbits while still being able to land at sea or even on land. Exciting times!
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
