News
Northrop Grumman partners with Firefly and SpaceX to save Antares rocket, launch Cygnus spacecraft
Northrop Grumman has announced plans to partner with startup Firefly Aerospace to save (and upgrade) the conglomerate’s Antares rocket, which it uses to launch Cygnus cargo spacecraft to the International Space Station.
The new and improved Antares 330 rocket could debut as early as late 2024. The existing Antares 230 rocket has just two launches left before a lack of new hardware from crucial Ukrainian suppliers will permanently ground it – a time Northrop Grumman estimates will come as early as spring (Q2) 2023. To fill Antares’ 18-month availability gap, Northrop Grumman says it has purchased three SpaceX Falcon 9 launches to continue Cygnus space station cargo deliveries largely unabated.
In some ways, Northrop Grumman’s decision to purchase alternate launch services from SpaceX is surprising. After Antares suffered a catastrophic failure during an operational Cygnus launch in October 2014, Orbital Sciences chose to purchase three Atlas V launches from the United Launch Alliance (ULA) to ensure continued cargo deliveries while it attempted to return its own rocket to flight. Antares fully took over in 2017 after returning to flight in 2016.
However, seven or so years later, ULA is on the verge of retiring Atlas V and has already sold all remaining Atlas V launch contracts. Meanwhile, its next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket is years behind schedule and unlikely to debut before 2023, making it extremely unlikely that ULA would have been able to fulfill Northrop Grumman’s desire to preserve its existing Cygnus launch schedule. It’s possible that Vulcan could have gotten the job done, but each Cygnus launch would have likely ended up several months (or more) behind schedule, thus requiring SpaceX and future provider Sierra Nevada Corporation to fill in the space station resource gaps Cygnus would leave.
With the benefit of hindsight and knowing that Antares 330 is unlikely to debut before late 2024 or 2025, it’s clear that SpaceX was the only viable option. Thanks to SpaceX operating in an entirely different universe of launch cadence and availability relative to the rest of the world, the company should have no issue whatsoever substituting a few of the dozens of Falcon 9 Starlink launches likely planned in 2023 and 2024 with Cygnus space station resupply runs.
Northrop Grumman’s decision comes almost four months after Russia’s second illegal invasion of Ukraine, an action that immediately threw the future of its Antares rocket into question. The only major components of Antares-Cygnus Northrop Grumman (through its 2018 acquisition of Orbital ATK) is responsible for building are the rocket’s Castor 30XL second stage and Cygnus’ service module. Cygnus’ silver pressure vessel is built by Thales Alenia Space, the payload fairing is built by RUAG, the Antares booster engines are supplied by Russia’s NPO Energomash, and the Antares booster structures are built by Ukraine’s Yuzhnoye SDO and Yuzhmash.
Now embroiled in an open shooting war begun by Russia, Ukraine’s aerospace industry has been on borrowed time for several months. In July, the Yuzhmash factory was reportedly struck by cruise missiles, killing several people and presumably damaging the facility. Northrop Grumman’s August 8th announcement that it US startup Firefly Aerospace will build a domestic replacement for the Antares first stage all but guarantees that its former Ukrainian partners are no longer able to supply rocket hardware.
The Antares 330 booster Firefly intends to build for Northrop Grumman will be substantially larger and “significantly increase” the rocket’s performance to low Earth orbit (LEO), which currently sits at 8 tons (~17,500 lb). Intriguingly, the booster Firefly will supply appears to be the latest iteration of the first stage of the medium-lift Beta rocket the startup has been working on for some time. According to Firefly’s recently updated Beta webpage, the next-generation rocket is expected to measure 4.32 meters (14.1 ft) wide and 55.7 meters (182.5 ft) tall; produce about 720 tons (1.6M lbf) of thrust in vacuum, and launch up to 13 tons (28,700 lb) to LEO.
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
