News
Mars has competition from Venus after new study shows signs of life
NASA and SpaceX are simultaneously planning their trips to Mars and the Moon, but a recent study published in Nature Astronomy has brought a different planet into the running for a new near-term exploration mission: Venus.
A team of scientists led by Dr. Jane Graeves of Cardiff University in the UK just announced the discovery of phosphine in the clouds of Venus. This rare molecule is made either industrially or as a byproduct of microbes that live in oxygen-free environments, meaning there’s serious evidence that life may exist on our sister planet.
“This was an experiment made out of pure curiosity, really,” Dr. Graeves detailed to the Royal Astronomical Society. “I thought we’d just be able to rule out extreme scenarios, like the clouds being stuffed full of organisms. When we got the first hints of phosphine in Venus’ spectrum, it was a shock!”
With NASA’s 2020 Mars Rover Perseverance on its way to do some astrobiological science on our red neighbor, this new finding on Venus looks to now have some high-level advocates for prioritized exploration.
“Life on Venus? The discovery of phosphine, a byproduct of anaerobic biology, is the most significant development yet in building the case for life off Earth,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine tweeted about the news shortly after its publication. “About 10 years ago NASA discovered microbial life at 120,000ft in Earth’s upper atmosphere. It’s time to prioritize Venus.”
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1305598182571810822
Planetary scientist Paul Byrne of North Carolina State University echoed this same sentiment in a quote published by The New York Times. “If this planet is active and is producing phosphine, and there is something that’s making it in the Venus atmosphere, then by God almighty, forget this Mars nonsense,” Byrne opined. “We need a lander, an orbiter, we need a program.”
Similar to thinking about Mars’ ancient past being filled with more Earth-like components such as water bodies (or perhaps not), Venus is thought to have been the home to lakes, rivers, and oceans before a runaway greenhouse effect made it into the hellish landscape it is today. This thinking has partly lead to speculation about the possibility of microbes migrating or developing in the clouds of the planet as ‘aerial’ life where temperatures are much more Earth-like, albeit very acidic. “Finding phosphine on Venus was an unexpected bonus! The discovery raises many questions, such as how any organisms could survive. On Earth, some microbes can cope with up to about 5% of acid in their environment – but the clouds of Venus are almost entirely made of acid,” commented team member Dr. Clara Sousa Silva of MIT.
For planetary science enthusiasts, of course, the idea of looking for life or even a new home for humans in the clouds of Venus isn’t new. Astrobiologist David Grinspoon, for one, has been advocating for the planet’s cause for quite some time. “Venus, this planet where I’ve been proposing for decades that there could be a biosphere in the clouds,” he exclaimed in a recent video chat about the discovery. “I mean, Venus is a place we do not associate with extraterrestrial life… It’s so hot, and so dry, the pressure’s so huge…we think life is gonna be anywhere but Venus. But interestingly if you go 30 miles up into the clouds, it’s rather comfortable in the sense that it’s sort of like room temperature [and pressure] in the room you’re in right now.”
The discovery of phosphine on Venus is also exciting for exoplanet hunting endeavors, i.e., looking for signs of life on planets outside our solar system. “It’s very exciting because phosphine is a gas that should not exist in an atmosphere like Venus’,” Grinspoon explained. “It stands out as an anomaly… Not only that, phosphine has been previously suggested as a very good biosignature that we might find on an exoplanet – a gas that’s made by life. It’s not easy to make in non-biological ways.”
A renewed call for Venusian exploration is already ready to be answered by a few scientists and groups, one notable example being startup launch provider Rocket Lab. As a rocket company focused on dedicated missions for small payloads, Rocket Lab stands as a ready and willing partner for any organization looking to gather more data from Venus directly. In fact, CEO Peter Beck already has plans in the works for the planet most symbolically synonymous with romance.
“I’m madly in love with Venus,” Beck said on August 5th this year during a live streamed company update. “I’m working very hard to put together a private mission to go to Venus in 2023… At the very least, I think it’s a needle-mover even for just a private mission to try and go do something interplanetary. That sends a message to the rest of the world that, ‘Hey, look — we can do these things privately.’”
Another notable mission that’s relevant to Beck and Rocket Lab’s goals for small payload missions to interplanetary destinations was the Mars Cube One companions of NASA’s InSight lander launched in 2018. After traveling the the red planet with the lander, the twin cube satellites were able to send back data and a photo of Mars to Earth. This proved that tiny affordable spacecraft could be used for some serious deep-space science. Perhaps one of the biggest discoveries in our solar system of late could be followed up by an itty bitty mission (respectively)?
You can watch Dr. Jane Greaves, explain the discovery on Venus in detail:
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
