News
NASA to retry Artemis I Moon rocket launch on Saturday
NASA says it has alleviated issues that arose during its first Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket launch attempt and will try again as early as Saturday, September 3rd.
Measuring around 98 meters (~322 feet) tall and capable of launching up to 95 tons (~210,000 lb) to low Earth orbit, the SLS rocket’s first launch – Artemis I – will attempt to send NASA Orion spacecraft on its way to lunar orbit. If all goes to plan, a partial prototype of the deep space crew transport vehicle will enter orbit spend several weeks around the Moon, where it will attempt to prove that Orion is safe and ready to launch NASA astronauts.
Approximately six years behind schedule and tens of billions of dollars over budget, the combined Orion spacecraft and SLS rocket were originally expected to debut in 2016 when Congress legally required NASA to develop the combined system in 2011. It would be difficult for the stakes to be much higher.
Now, after an unsuccessful August 29th launch attempt that turned into a wet dress rehearsal test as a result of poor planning, NASA is ready to try again.
SLS is scheduled to lift off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) LC-39B pad no earlier than (NET) 2:17 pm EDT (18:17 UTC) on Saturday, September 3rd. Like the first, the window lasts for two hours, providing some flexibility for NASA to troubleshoot any other minor problems that might crop up during the second launch attempt.
During the first SLS launch attempt, several problems arose, including a possible crack in Core Stage foam insulation, a misbehaving vent valve, a hydrogen fuel leak, and weather concerns that delayed the start of propellant loading by more than an hour. The most important problem, causing NASA to abort its first attempt at T-40 minutes to liftoff, involved Core Stage engine chill systems.
At the time, available data suggested that one of the Core Stage’s four modified and flight-proven Space Shuttle Main Engines (known as RS-25) was unable to chill down to the temperatures required for safe ignition. In a September 1st press conference, after more analysis, NASA now says that the rocket was, in fact, correctly trickling liquid hydrogen fuel through all four engines and that all engines were likely ready to go. The agency and its contractors say they are confident that the true cause of the unfavorable readings was a faulty temperature sensor.
In an earlier press conference, senior officials noted that the Boeing-built SLS Core Stage is designed in a way that makes those faulty temperature sensors virtually inaccessible without major work – and certainly not while the rocket is still at the launch pad. A rollback to NASA’s Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) could easily delay the next SLS launch attempt by 4-6 weeks, if not longer.
Perhaps as a result of the looming consequences of another rollback, instead of sending the rocket back to fix the newly discovered sensor issue, NASA officials now say they never actually needed the broken sensor and can get by without it working properly. That doesn’t entirely explain why NASA fully aborted an SLS launch attempt as a direct result of not liking the data produced by said sensor a few days prior. Nonetheless, the officials say that by analyzing several other unspecified telemetry readings within the RS-25s and SLS plumbing, they can effectively infer that the engines have been chilled to the right temperature.
In theory, if no other issues arise in the remaining 40 minutes leading up to launch, that should allow NASA to confidently launch SLS without having to replace components deep within the rocket.
NASA will begin live coverage of its next SLS launch attempt on NASA TV at 5:45 am EDT (09:45 UTC), followed by a separate hosted broadcast (the agency’s first attempt at a 4K launch webcast) beginning at 12:15 pm EDT (16:15 UTC).
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
