News
NASA opens $2.6 billion in contract services for Moon to Mars missions
“We are going,” is an important part NASA’s motto for its return to the Moon, and to get there, the space agency will need corporate partners. As part of carrying out the private sector integration requirements of White House Space Policy Directive 1, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced today at 2 pm EST the nine companies the agency has selected to compete for $2.6 billion in contracts to support its Moon to Mars mission. These contracts will be geared to filling the needs of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program over the next ten years of its development.
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1067495719836110850
Prior to the announcement, Bridenstine spoke on The Hill TV’s “Rising” program, emphasizing the purpose of the Space Policy Directive’s mission to build the capabilities of not only returning to the Moon, but stay as a sustained presence. In his opening remarks, he further honed in on the major difference in NASA’s current direction for obtaining new capabilities. “We’re gonna buy the service,” he cheered. As the event continued, he and Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington, detailed the numerous technical capabilities required for the Moon mission that the private companies will be competing to develop.
Here’s the break down of the space agency’s newly announced partners:
Astrobotic Technology: A Pittsburgh-based company focused on flying hardware systems into space for companies, governments, and universities. The company is currently developing a “Peregrine Lander” aimed at orbital and surface operations for any lunar destination.
Deep Space Systems: A Colorado-based company focused on systems engineering for supporting the design, development, integration, testing, and operations of science and exploration spacecraft. The company currently subcontracts with other major contractors in the field of space exploration such as Lockheed Martin and NASA.
Draper: A Cambridge-based company focused on developing general engineered systems for corporate, government, and academic solutions. Their Moon work will focus on providing payload services.
Firefly Aerospace: An Austin-based company focused on economical and convenienct access to space for small payloads via reliable launch vehicles. Their priority is providing low-cost rocket access to low Earth orbit (LEO).
Intuitive Machines: A Houston-based company focused on cradle to grave aerospace engineering development, integration, and testing services along with a unique set of aerospace. Some of its current technology developments include a universal reentry vehicle and a lunar lander.
Lockheed Martin: An industry giant with a long, established history of involvement with NASA and human spaceflight. The company will provide any number of contributions towards NASA’s mission to the Moon.
Maston Space Systems: A Mojave-based company focused on reusable rocket technology and reliable planetary landers for the Earth, Moon, Mars, and beyond. The company previously competed and succeeded through two funding levels in the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009.
Moon Express: A Cape Canaveral-based company dedicated to expanding commercial opportunities in general on the Moon. The company has previously worked with NASA to develop Moon commercial cargo transporation capabilities and was the first private company authorized by the US government to land on the Moon.
Orbit Beyond: A New Jersey-based company building spacecraft bound for the Moon. [no link available]
The White House Space Policy Directive 1, signed December 11, 2017, revised US national space policy to integrate NASA’s programs with private sector partners to return to the Moon before continuing on to human exploration of Mars. As part of a push to continue American leadership in space, the Directive instructs NASA to develop a flexible deep space infrastructure to support the increasing complexity of missions. The agency currently partners with the private sector for other missions, including human transport to the International Space Station (ISS) wherein SpaceX and Boeing are developing capsules for that purpose, and the Directive expands that to include deep space missions.
The Space Policy Directive was born from the recommendations provided during the first meeting of the new National Space Council, a group under the US Department of Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce. During Council meetings, US government officials from civilian and military space along with space industry leaders such as SpaceX and Boeing, as well as other significant public and private institutions, hold discussions with high ranking members of the US government, the Vice President being the Chairman. The purpose is to help overall comprehension of the challenges involved in making significant progress in space exploration and propose viable policy solutions.
The outline published by NASA to fulfill the Space Policy Directive, the “Exploration Campaign“, focuses on three core domains for development: low Earth orbit, lunar orbit and surface, and Mars, with the option of other deep space objectives being integrated. Under this framework, NASA hopes to have its next rocket combination, the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, fly to the Moon by 2020 with crewed flights planned for 2023. Direct support to the ISS will end by 2025.
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
