News
NASA plans to purchase another seat on Russian Soyuz after SpaceX
NASA and SpaceX are preparing to launch astronauts from U.S. soil for the first time in nearly a decade. The collaboration is designed to give NASA more flexibility when it comes to launching crewed missions.
When the agency’s storied shuttle program came to an end in 2011, it left NASA dependent upon Russian rockets as its sole means of transporting astronauts to and from the space station. But the arrangement, which costs NASA roughly $85 million per seat, was always intended as a temporary solution.
NASA wanted to support a burgeoning commercial market, so it turned to private industry to build its next-generation space taxi. To that end, in 2014, the agency selected two companies — SpaceX and Boeing — to transport future crews. Each company would design and build its spacecraft capable of carrying humans. Six years later, SpaceX is set to become the first commercial company to transport astronauts, as its inaugural crewed flight prepares to take off on May 27.
The mission, known as Demo-2, is a flight test that will be used to certify the Dragon spacecraft for routine astronaut transport to and from the space station. During the mission, astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley will pilot the craft to the space station, where it will dock itself to the orbital outpost.
Their time on station is still to be determined, but the duo will make the most of their orbital stay. Not only will they evaluate how Dragon performs at different stages of the mission, but they will also assist fellow NASA astronaut Chris Cassidy with routine maintenance and station keeping.
Once Crew Dragon has been cleared to ferry people regularly, it will give NASA the flexibility to carry out missions of many different durations. To date, crews have spent anywhere from a couple of weeks in space, all the way up to a year. Their time on orbit is typically limited by the spacecraft that brought them, but by having multiple vehicles capable of flying to and from the space station, gives agencies around the world greater flexibility in mission planning.
Currently, NASA is in talks to purchase one more seat on a Russian Soyuz that would fly this fall. As it stands now, Chris Cassidy is the sole NASA astronaut on station, joined by two Russian colleagues. However, that leaves the station understaffed. Simply maintaining the orbital outpost is more than one crew member can handle. (A full space station crew is six.)
Behnken and Hurley are scheduled to launch on May 27 and will stay on station for as many as 110 days. That’s because their ride is only certified to stay in space that long. The harsh space environment wears on hardware, and the Crew Dragon’s solar arrays contain sensitive electronics that have a limited space life.
So what happens when Behnken and Hurley come home? At this point, the schedules are a little unclear, but Cassidy could remain on station by himself until the next crew can launch. While preparing for Demo-2, SpaceX is currently finishing construction on the capsule that will carry its first official crew. Four astronauts will fly on Crew Dragon sometime late this year or early next year, providing a fresh batch of astronauts.
In the meantime, NASA wants to make sure it will be able to have access to the space station, so it’s in talks with Roscosmos to buy one more seat. After that deal is made, NASA has a much different idea for the future of its partnership with the Russian space agency. During a series of briefings in advance of Demo-2, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine expressed how he hoped in the near future that NASA and Roscosmos could set up a trade agreement.
This would mean that U.S. astronauts would still fly on a Russian Soyuz and vice versa. Only instead of money exchanging hands, the two agencies would simply trade seats on each other’s vehicles. The first international partner to fly on a Crew Dragon will be Soichi Noguchi of the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA), who will join NASA astronauts Victor Glover, Mike Hopkins, and Shannon Walker as part of the Crew-1 mission.
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
