News
NASA installs SpaceX-delivered docking adapter for Crew Dragon, Boeing Starliner missions
Launched on July 25th, SpaceX’s CRS-18 Cargo Dragon successfully docked with the International Space Station (ISS) a few days later, delivering a major piece of space station hardware in its unpressurized trunk.
Known as International Docking Adapter 3 (IDA-3), the docking port will quite literally open the door for future commercial missions to the space station. Some 25 days after arriving at the ISS, NASA astronauts Nick Hague and Andrew Morgan performed a six-hour spacewalk (also known as an extra-vehicular activity or EVA) on August 21st, over the course of which they successfully installed IDA-3 on the outside of the space station.
On Monday, August 19th, IDA-3 was extracted from Cargo Dragon’s expendable trunk using Canadarm-2 and stored a few feet away from the Pressurized Mating Adapter 3 (PMA-3) on the station’s Harmony module. The PMA-3 is a leftover from the days of Space Shuttle and has thus been unused since 2011 – IDA-3’s installation means that the old hardware will be able to finally return to operational use.
The successful spacewalk was the fifth of this year and 218th overall. Astronauts Nick Hague and Andrew Morgan worked outside of the ISS to complete the tethering process and install power and data connectors, spending much of the 6.5 hours simply attaching and routing new cabling, extremely difficult to do in NASA’s semi-rigid EVA spacesuits. Astronaut Christina Koch assisted the duo from inside the station.
IDA-2, IDA-3’s predecessor, was successfully installed way back in August 2016, while the docking port was used for the first time ever just six months ago, when SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft – as part of its inaugural orbital launch – autonomously docked at IDA-2 on March 3rd, 2019. IDA-1 was sadly destroyed after a Falcon 9 upper stage failed catastrophically in June 2015, resulting in the total loss of Cargo Dragon CRS-7 and its array of ISS-bound cargo. Although far from the first, IDA-3 is still an extremely important addition to the ISS, particularly with respect to assuring redundancy and future accessibility for numerous spacecraft.
IDA’s are meant to serve as truly international ports, built by Boeing from a partially open-source design with parts from companies located in 25 different states and primary structures produced by Russian company RSC-Energia.
Both adapters feature a standard design, uniform docking requirements, and fittings for power and data transfer, all of which which are readily available to spacecraft designers to help streamline and simplify docking procedures. The IDA (technically, IDSS) standard has been adopted by both SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner, while Russia may also adopt the standard on its next-generation Federation spacecraft, meant to replace Soyuz sometime in the 2020s.
Both US capsules – currently in various stages of production and flight preparations – will be able to autonomously dock with either IDA-2 or -3, as will SpaceX’s Crew Dragon-derived Dragon 2, to be used for SpaceX’s Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) contract. With two IDA adapters, a SpaceX and Boeing crew capsule or two SpaceX Dragon 2s could simultaneously dock with the ISS.
Unlike the berthing process used by Cargo Dragon, Cygnus, and (prospectively) Dream Chaser, the docking adapters allow for spacecraft to perform autonomous docking maneuvers. Berthing instead involves the spacecraft in question station-keeping just a few meters away from the ISS while astronaut operators manually ‘grab’ the spacecraft with a giant, robotic arm known as Canadarm2.
While the installation of a second adapter is certainly a step in the right direction to support a larger commercial customer base, there are many more steps to get through before the ISS can begin to support regular visits from Crew Dragon and Starliner. Both SpaceX and Boeing are hopeful that their capsules will be ready for their crewed launch debuts (Demo-2 and OFT, respectively) before 2019 is out, although delays into 2020 are extremely likely for both NASA Commercial Crew providers.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
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
