News
NASA is training SpaceX's first Crew Dragon astronauts for a much longer mission in space
NASA has revealed that the astronauts assigned to SpaceX’s Crew Dragon astronaut launch debut are training for a space station mission many times longer than initially planned.
Scheduled to deliver two NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) no earlier than (NET) late-April or May 2020, Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 mission will be the first crewed launch in SpaceX’s 18-year history. As previously noted on Teslarati (and by NASA itself, briefly), Demo-2 will also mark the first time in history that a privately-built spacecraft attempts to launch humans into orbit.
Still, NASA has funded the development of Crew Dragon (and competitor Boeing’s Starliner) not to achieve firsts but to restore the United States’ ability to launch its own astronauts to the ISS. Along those lines, both Crew Dragon (Demo-2) and Starliner’s (CFT) astronaut test flights were nominally designed to last about a week or two before returning NASA’s astronauts to Earth – a full end-to-end test for both extraordinarily complex vehicles. Two weeks, however, is simply not long enough for those astronauts to practically serve as full members of space station crew, something the ISS generally requires. In response, NASA has been seriously considering extending Boeing’s crewed test flight and has just recently suggested that SpaceX’s own Demo-2 test flight will be similarly upgraded.
About a month ago, SpaceX and NASA talked openly about the possibility of a longer-duration Crew Dragon astronaut launch debut for the first time, potentially extending the amount of time those astronauts are able to spend at the space station from about one week up to 1.5-3 months. This would allow Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 NASA astronauts – Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley – to serve as full members of the ISS crew, expanding the US presence from one to three astronauts.
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger offered some additional details about what exactly NASA might task Behnken and Hurley with on an extended flight earlier this month. Most importantly, the space agency wants the former astronaut – a Space Shuttle and extra-vehicular activity (EVA) veteran – to be (re)trained for spacewalks, allowing him to support an ever-growing to-do list of critical space station repairs and upgrades.
In effect, extending Crew Dragon’s astronaut flight test will make it almost identical to an “operational” flight where Crew Dragon ferries astronauts to the space station, docks for about six months, and finally returns the same astronauts to Earth at the end of its mission. More importantly, though, NASA’s decision to extend Commercial Crew Program (CCP) test flights – kickstarted with Boeing’s beleaguered Starliner spacecraft – is motivated by a desire to prevent the United States’ presence on the space station from dwindling or even regressing to zero in the near future.
Triggered by years of SpaceX and Boeing delays, NASA will now likely have to purchase more seats on Russian Soyuz launches if it wishes to maintain an full, uninterrupted presence on ISS for the next 12-24 months. After suffering numerous deeply concerning software failures on its first and only orbital launch, Boeing’s Starliner is unlikely to be ready to launch crew anytime soon. At the same time, although SpaceX is closer to its astronaut launch debut than ever before, it’s highly unlikely that Crew Dragon can singlehandedly support a full ISS complement of three NASA astronauts while Starliner works out its issues.
As such, NASA is looking everywhere it can to squeeze a bit more on-orbit time out of existing astronaut missions scheduled in the next year or so, and both Starliner and Crew Dragon’s test flights – barring showstoppers – are excellent opportunities. With NASA Johnson Space Center’s confirmation that both Behnken and Hurley are already deep into the extra training needed for an extended flight, chances are good that both astronauts will be ready for a one- or several-month mission by the time that NASA and SpaceX are ready and willing to launch.
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
