News
Firefly nears second orbital launch attempt as US forces Ukrainian founder to divest
While the rocket startup he is responsible for resurrecting is preparing for a second orbital launch attempt, a Ukrainian multimillionaire – an entrepreneur, businessman, and the founder of Firefly Aerospace – has once again been forced to take extreme actions by the US government.
Resurrected in 2017 after going bankrupt and ceasing operations the year prior, Firefly is a private launch provider based out of Austin, Texas and founded by Maxim Polyakov and former CEO Tom Markusic. Polyakov has supported the company since its second inception, privately funding the startup with over $200 million earned through success in Ukrainian tech industries. With those contributions, Polyakov was able to singlehandedly resurrect the startup from bankruptcy and continue the development of an even more ambitious Alpha launch vehicle.
For the last two years, though, Polyakov has been under scrutiny from US government officials, who’ve objected to Polyakov – a Ukrainian and UK citizen – having control over the company, with fears that the launch technology developed by the company could make its way back to Ukraine and poses a national security threat.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
In late 2020, Polyakov quietly stepped down as chairman and withdrew from Firefly’s day-to-day operations in the hopes of killing the controversy and giving the startup a better chance at being awarded government contracts. Firefly’s board of directors includes many former U.S government officials, including Deborah Lee James, former secretary of the Air Force, and Robert Cardillo, former director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
However, officials were not satisfied with Polyakov simply stepping down from operations, indicating they want him to have less ownership in the company as well. In November 2021, just two months after Firefly’s inaugural flight test, Polyakov received a letter from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S (CFIUS). This letter expressed these ongoing concerns and asked that he, along with his investment company, Noosphere Venture Partners, sell their stock in Firefly; which amounted to over 50% stake in the company. Because of this request, Firefly halted their operations at Vandenberg Air-force Base.
Before halting launch operations, Firefly claimed to be on track for another Alpha launch as early as January 2022. Firefly’s first launch on September 2nd, 2021 ended in failure around two minutes after liftoff due to a premature engine shutdown. Jason Mello, president of Firefly Space Transportation Services, stated in an interview that fixing the problem responsible for the failure was “fairly easy and straightforward.”
On February 16th, 2022 Polyakov revealed that the United States government had once again gone on the offensive, this time forcing him to fully and permanently cede any involvement in his company. He posted the following statement on Facebook:
Polyakov revealed that he chose to sell his 58% stake in the company to co-founder and CEO Tom Markusic for $1 USD – a selfless act given that selling his stake for nothing all but guarantees he will never recoup a cent of the several hundred million dollars he invested in Firefly.
Previously, Polyakov expressed how excited he was to turn Firefly into a massive aerospace company that both the United States and Ukraine could be proud of and benefit from. “During the Soviet era, Ukraine produced some of the world’s best rocket and engine technology, but much of those inventions have languished in recent years due to lack of investment. The hope was that Firefly could pair its best engineers from the U.S. and Ukraine together to make a fleet of large rockets capable of taking many satellites into orbit and, later on, missions to the moon. Polyakov wanted the U.S. to gain access to Ukrainian expertise, while also finding a way to boost the prospects of Ukrainian aerospace engineers, he has said.” (Bloomberg)
It is speculated that the US government’s sudden and extreme requests came because of concerns over the rising tensions caused by Russia’s increasingly unstable posturing and recurring threats of invasion. Even though Ukraine is friendly with the United States, concerns of conflict with Russia may have increased worries about what might happen to technology developed inside of the country. Ukraine, a sovereign nation, has been forced to increase security along its borders as fear of a Russian invasion grows.
Despite the recent legal and organizational setbacks and drama caused by the US government, Firefly has been doing extremely well from a technical standpoint. The company recently shared a video of the successful static fire testing of both stages of the second Alpha rocket, indicating that it could be ready for flight in the very near future. Even though Polyakov was forced to abandon his aerospace startup, it’s never been more clear that his investment not only saved Firefly but raised the company closer to success than it’s ever been before.
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
