News
NASA awards SpaceX five more Dragon astronaut launch contracts
NASA has finalized plans to purchase another five Crew Dragon launches from SpaceX, securing its astronauts access to the International Space Station (ISS) through 2030.
The award comes three months after NASA issued a notice of intent to purchase five additional missions from SpaceX. The space agency signed a different contract for three more Crew Dragon launches just three months before the latest order, meaning that NASA has now purchased eight new Crew Dragon launches from SpaceX in six months – doubling the spacecraft’s future launch manifest in the process.
August 31st’s order adds Crew missions 10 through 14 to Crew Dragon’s roster and brings its total number of planned operational NASA astronaut launches to 14. NASA says the five extra missions will cost $1.44 billion and raise the total value of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon CCtCap contract to $4.93 billion.
Factoring in a sum of approximately $2.74 billion that funded development and three test launches, NASA will ultimately pay an average of $328 million for each of 15 productive Crew Dragon astronaut launches (including Demo-2, the spacecraft’s first crewed test flight). Assuming four astronauts fly on each operational launch, the average price per astronaut launched through 2030 will be $85 million.
With its latest contract, NASA will beat that average and pay $288 million per launch ($72 million per astronaut). Crew-10 through Crew-14 will likely occur in the late 2020s, meaning that the space agency may be saving even more money than is immediately obvious. Assuming an inflation rate of 2.5% over the next eight years, $288 million today could be worth around $235 million in 2030. SpaceX is not paid until after its services are rendered.
NASA’s decision to award SpaceX eight new Crew Dragon launch contracts in 2022 is a major blow to its second Commercial Crew provider, Boeing, which has received zero additional orders. It also emphasizes just how good of a deal the agency got with SpaceX. Once said to be “well positioned to fly [its] first crew in early 2020,” Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule finally completed its first (mostly) successful uncrewed test flight in May 2022. Boeing and NASA are now working towards February 2023 for the spacecraft’s first crewed test flight, delaying Starliner’s first operational astronaut launch until late 2023 at the earliest.
Starliner still has only six operational launch contracts, which date back to ta guarantee in the original 2014 CCtCap awards that promised 2-6 operational launch contracts per provider. Thanks to NASA’s fixed-price contract with Boeing, the agency won’t have to cover the almost $700 million that years of Starliner delays and a test flight do-over have cost the company to date, but taxpayers will still end up paying a total of $4.49 billion – $748 million per operational Boeing astronaut launch.
Even using iffy Boeing calculus that claims NASA will get five seats of value per launch by adding an extra astronaut or cargo, the space agency would end up paying $150 million per astronaut through 2030. If only four astronauts launch on each Starliner, the average price per seat rises to $187 million.
Unless Boeing is able to find a commercial customer willing to burn tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to avoid launching private astronauts with SpaceX, it may never recoup the losses it has incurred developing Starliner. Worse, without Boeing paying even more out of pocket to certify Starliner to launch on a different rocket, the spacecraft will find itself without a certified rocket after its sixth operational launch.
Meanwhile, on top of eight new NASA contracts, Crew Dragon has already supported two private astronaut launches and SpaceX has contracts for five more private missions through 2024. Put simply, thanks in large part to the void created by Boeing’s surprising shortcomings, SpaceX practically owns the western market for crewed orbital spaceflight and will likely continue to dominate it throughout the 2020s.
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
