News
NASA to roll SLS Moon rocket to the launch pad two days early
NASA has given the go-ahead to roll its Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket to the launch pad two days ahead of schedule.
That bodes well for plans to launch the rocket for the first time (a milestone NASA originally hoped to pass in December 2016) as early as late August or September 2022. NASA says that its first SLS rocket is now on track to begin a roughly 24-hour journey to Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39B launch pad at 9 pm EDT on August 16th. That will kick off approximately two more weeks of work that could finally culminate in the rocket’s first real launch attempt as early as August 29th, a moment anywhere from 12 to 16 years in the making.
SLS was created by Congress in 2010 when the legislative body drafted a law demanding that NASA develop a heavy-lift rocket to replace the Space Shuttle. In practice, Congress (particularly several key stakeholders with former Shuttle workforce and facilities in their states or districts) was primarily interested in keeping former Shuttle infrastructure active and workers employed, and left NASA to figure out how to retroactively engineer a rocket out of a list of legal requirements mostly driven by politics.
NASA ultimately devised a rocket that would extrapolate Shuttle external tank technology into a larger liquid hydrogen/oxygen ‘core stage’ powered by four flight-proven, reusable Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME; now RS-25). A relatively small orbital upper stage derived from Boeing’s Delta IV rocket would sit atop the core stage, which would be augmented with two stretched Shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters (SRBs). Altogether, the first variant of SLS – Block 1 – is expected to be able to launch up to 95 tons (~210,000 lb) to low Earth orbit and around 27 tons (~59,500 lb) to the Moon, 32% and 38% worse than the Saturn V rocket NASA abandoned for the Space Shuttle in the 1970s.
Nevertheless, SLS will likely become the most powerful rocket currently in operation if it successfully debuts within the next few months. Only SpaceX’s Starship, which will eventually launch a Starship-derived Moon lander for NASA, is likely to challenge or beat the performance of SLS within the next 5-10 years.
However, after more than half a decade of delays and around $25 billion spent without a single launch to show for its investment, NASA no longer has any near-term plans to use SLS for more than sending a few astronauts on their way to the Moon once every year or two. The only tangible payload currently assigned to SLS Block 1 is NASA’s own Orion spacecraft, an earlier version of which Lockheed Martin began developing for NASA in 2006. Approximately 16 years and $25 billion later, the Orion capsule will be better than the Apollo Program’s Command module (capsule) by most measures, but its service (propulsion) module will be far worse.
With about half as much usable delta V (propulsive capability) as the Apollo CSM, Orion is incapable of transporting astronauts to the same convenient low lunar orbits that the Apollo Program used, forcing NASA to send it to high, exotic alternatives. As a result, NASA has been forced to create a multi-billion-dollar destination for Orion (the Gateway station) and complicate the mission of new Moon landers like SpaceX’s Starship.
Countless pitfalls and shortcomings aside, NASA is about to finally roll the fourth most capable flightworthy rocket ever assembled (behind Saturn V, N-1, and Energia) to the launch pad. Regardless of the outcome of the mission, SLS will likely be the fifth largest rocket (including the Space Shuttle) ever launched when it lifts off. If that launch is successful, the achievement will be even more impressive, marking the third time out of three attempts that NASA has successfully launched a super heavy-lift launch vehicle (>50t to LEO) on its first try.
A successful Artemis I launch would also give the Orion spacecraft an opportunity to enter orbit around the Moon and test most of the systems it will need for Artemis II, which is intended to carry two astronauts. Orion won’t carry or test any life support or docking systems, making it only a partial demonstration, but it will still be the first time a prototype of a crewed spacecraft has attempted to enter lunar orbit since December 1972.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
