News
NASA says SpaceX's Crew Dragon abort test is go for launch on doomed Falcon 9 rocket
NASA has formally given SpaceX permission for Crew Dragon’s second launch – a crucial test flight that should be the last before SpaceX launches NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) for the first time ever.
Known as its In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, Crew Dragon will attempt to escape a Falcon 9 rocket while airborne, a feat that CEO Elon Musk says will almost certainly destroy the rocket in the process. Technically speaking, NASA and SpaceX completed what is known as a Launch Readiness Review (LRR) sometime on Thursday, allowing SpaceX to proceed with launch preparations. By all accounts, Crew Dragon’s IFA test will likely be one of the most spectacular SpaceX launches ever, given that it is all but guaranteed to result in the intentional in-flight failure of a massive Falcon 9 rocket – “destroyed in Dragon fire” according to Musk.
Thanks to a much smoother launch flow compared to Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 orbital launch debut on Falcon 9, SpaceX’s newest Crew Dragon capsule is scheduled to lift off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (KSC LC-39A) as early as 8 am EST (13:00 UTC), Saturday, January 18th. The In-Flight Abort test will likely be one of Crew Dragon’s most challenging hurdles yet but success would be a major boon for the spacecraft’s demonstrated safety. While both Boeing and SpaceX will ultimately ferry NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, only SpaceX chose to prove Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort capabilities in the real world.
Effectively condemned to destruction to support a greater cause after a productive life, Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1046 rolled out to Pad 39A – Crew Dragon mounted atop it – on January 16th after successfully performing its last routine static fire on the 11th. As previously discussed on Teslarati, B1046 is the first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster completed by SpaceX and is thus also the oldest flightworthy rocket in the company’s substantial fleet.
“After becoming the first SpaceX booster to launch three times in December 2018, B1046 spent several months at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory undergoing inspections and refurbishment. At some point, SpaceX assigned the thrice-flown booster to support Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test – effectively a death sentence – and shipped the booster to Florida, where it publicly appeared for the first time in months on October 3rd, 2019. Given that four more Falcon 9 boosters have now successfully performed three (or even four) orbital-class launches each, B1046’s now-imminent demise is certainly disappointing but remains extremely pragmatic.”
Teslarati.com — January 15th, 2020
As such, there is arguably no better booster for SpaceX to expend even if its loss is still less satisfying than a successful post-launch landing. In fact, aside from NASA’s prematurely-retired Space Shuttle, the entire history of orbital-class rocketry has effectively operated on the assumption that it’s both normal and necessary for rockets to be almost entirely expendable.
Only by sheer force of will has SpaceX turned that assumption on its head, making the act of expending Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy boosters feel suddenly morose. Even then, the practice of propulsively landing orbital-class boosters is scarcely four years old, while reusing those boosters has been ongoing for less than three years. As such, B1046’s demise should be enjoyed for what it ultimately is: the spectacular retirement of a rocket that has already helped launch three separate payloads to orbit.
Perhaps even more importantly, B1046’s sacrifice should – if things go as planned – also pave the way for Crew Dragon to launch its first NASA astronauts into orbit just a few months from now. For the test to be successful, however, Crew Dragon will have to perform an extremely precise string of maneuvers – the failure of any one of which could potentially lead to the spacecraft’s destruction.
“Traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s) at an altitude of 28 kilometers (17 mi), Crew Dragon will ignite its abort thrusters and attempt to escape, the very act of which will likely hammer the spacecraft’s windward surfaces with an extra dozen or so metric tons (~25,000 lb) of aerodynamic pressure. Crew Dragon C205 could thus find itself traveling almost Mach 3 (more than a kilometer per second) moments after separating from Falcon 9, eventually reaching an apogee of almost 75 km (45 mi), after which it will reenter the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere and have to deploy an array of parachutes to ensure a gentle Atlantic Ocean splashdown.”
Teslarati.com — January 13th, 2020
Unfortunately, Crew Dragon escaping a supersonic Falcon 9 also means that that same Falcon 9 – basically a thin, flexible tube designed to be as light as possible – will meet a supersonic blast of air the moment Dragon’s SuperDraco abort thrusters ignite. A bit like if a hurricane on all kinds of meteorological steroids just sort of punched a soda can for fun, that airstream will almost certainly obliterate Falcon 9’s sacrificial upper stage into a sort of aluminum snow, quickly revealing – and likely then destroying – B1046’s carbon fiber interstage.
The rest of the thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster is also liable to break up after that supersonic punch. In fact, SpaceX engineers are so confident in B1046’s imminent demise that the booster will have neither landing legs or grid fins come launch. In a best-case scenario, if, against all odds, B1046 survives Dragon’s escape, the intact booster will subsequently impact the Atlantic Ocean at terminal velocity and become a nice, artificial reef off the coast of Florida. Stay tuned for updates from Teslarati and photographers Jamie Groh and Richard Angle as Falcon 9 B1046’s demise inches ever closer.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
