News
NASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.
Incredibly, over the course his fascinating hour-long prelude, Bridenstine effectively mentioned NASA’s own SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft – under development for the last decade at a cost of at least several tens of billions of dollars – a total of one time each. Instead, heavily emphasizing the absolute necessity that NASA’s next major human exploration project be sustainable, the administrator spoke at length about the foundational roles that international and domestic space agencies and private companies will need to take on in order to make NASA’s on-paper return to the Moon both real, successful, and useful.
Aside from his arguably brave (but spot-on) decision to all but ignore Boeing and Northrop Grumman’s SLS rocket and Lockheed Martin’s Orion spacecraft over the course of an hour spent speaking about the future of NASA’s human exploration of the Moon and on spaceflight more generally, Bridenstine had nothing but praise for recent successes in the American aerospace industry.
Most notably, he spoke about his belief – at least partially stemming from an executive order requiring it – that the only way NASA can seriously succeed and continue to lead the world in the task of human space exploration is to put an extreme focus on sustainability. Judging from his comments on the matter, the new NASA/Federal buzzword of choice is just a different way to describe hardware reusability, although it certainly leaves wiggle room for more than simply avoiding expendable rocket hardware.
“It’s on me to figure out how to [return to the Moon] sustainably. … And this time, when we go, we’re gonna go to stay. So how do we do go sustainably? Well, [we take] advantage of capabilities that didn’t exist in this country even five or ten years ago. We have commercial companies that can do things that weren’t possible even just a few years ago … to help develop this sustainable [Moon exploration] architecture.” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018
While it might not look like much (aside from a “no duh” statement) to anyone unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations of NASA bureaucracy and politicking, this quote – directed at an audience of senior NASA scientists and managers and independent experts – is absolutely extraordinary in the context of NASA’s history and the formulaic eggshells NASA administrators have traditionally been forced to walk on when discussing American rocketry.
Not only is SLS/Orion utterly and conspicuously absent in a response to the “how” of starting a new wave of lunar exploration, but Bridenstine also almost explicitly names Blue Origin and SpaceX as torchbearers of the sort of exceptional technological innovation that might revolutionize humanity’s relationship with space. By referring specifically to “commercial companies that can do things that weren’t possible even just a few years ago”, the only obvious answers in the context of serious human exploration on and around the Moon are Blue Origin and SpaceX, both of which managed their first commercial rocket landings in late 2015.
Bridenstine went even further still, noting that NASA will need not just reusable rockets for this sustainable lunar exploration, but also reusable orbital tugboats (space tugs) to sustainably ferry both humans and cargo to and from Earth and the Moon and reusable lunar landers capable of many trips back and forth from space stations orbiting the moon. At one point, he even used SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s (in)famous and well-worn analogy of commercial airlines to emphasize the insanity of not using reusable rockets:
“We have reusable rockets [now]… Imagine if you flew here across the country to [NASA Ames] in a 737 and when the mission was over, you threw the airplane away. How many of you would have flown here?” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018
At today's NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, Administrator Jim Bridenstine says the next hop to the moon is going to be sustainable – and will require reusable spaceflight hardware. Uses the same airplane analogy @ElonMusk does when it comes to explaining advantages.
— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) August 29, 2018
Reusable rockets lead the charge
It may be generous to include Blue Origin side by side with SpaceX, given the fact that its New Shepard rocket is extremely small and very suborbital, but the company does have eyes specifically set lunar landers and outposts (a project called Blue Moon) and is developing a large and reusable orbital-class rocket (New Glenn) set to debut in the early 2020s.
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
-
- We’re not here just yet, but SpaceX is pushing hard to build BFR and get humanity to Mars as quickly as practicable. (SpaceX)
-
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- Blue Origin’s Blue Moon concept, set to begin experimental lunar landings as early as 2022 or 2023. (Blue Origin)
SpaceX, while focused on Mars colonization, has also expressed a willingness to participate in any sort of lunar exploration that NASA or other international space agencies might have interest in. Currently in the middle of developing its own massive and fully reusable rocket, known as the Big F_____ Rocket (BFR), SpaceX nevertheless already has a flight-tested, highly successfully, and unbeatably cost-effective family of reusable Falcon rockets capable of affordably launching significant mass to the Moon. In fact, both NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are already seriously considering SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy as the launch vehicle of choice for several critical pieces of a Moon-orbiting space station, expected to launch no earlier than the early to mid-2020s.
Whether or not Bridenstine’s incredible and eloquent statements translate into tangible changes to NASA’s long-term strategy, it’s quite simply refreshing to hear a senior NASA executive – let alone the administrator – speak freely and rationally about the reality of what is needed to enable a truly new era of human spaceflight and exploration.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
