News
Rocket Lab to resume launches following in-flight anomaly investigation
Less than a month after the complete loss of customer payload due to an in-flight anomaly, Rocket Lab has announced that it is ready to return its small-class Electron rocket to flight. Company CEO, Peter Beck, during a media briefing Friday (July 31) said that the Electron second-stage “re-entered the atmosphere and burned up” resulting in a failed July 4 launch of the Electron and complete loss the customer payload of seven small satellites. Beck went on to state that through a collaborative investigation with the Federal Aviation Administration Rocket Lab was “able to quickly reconstruct what happened and the AIB board (Accident Investigation Board) was able to confidently narrow down the issue to a single electrical connection.”
The thirteenth flight of the Electron carried seven small satellites, all Earth-imaging inspiring the “Pics Or It Didn’t Happen” mission name. The rocket initially experienced a flawless launch from the company’s Launch Complex-1A on New Zealand’s Mahia Penninsula and everything seemed like it was going to plan until the video feed cut out unexpectedly shortly after the nominal ignition of the second-stage which was intended to carry the payloads to orbit.
The launch was completely event free during the first-stage ascent, stage separation, second stage ignition, and payload fairing jettison, then trouble occurred. Beck stated that the electrical connection that went bad during the second-stage of the flight was “incredibly unusual because it was able to evade all of the pre-flight acceptance testing.” Beck went on to explain that “while all of the testing showed no issues, after a period of time one of the joints had high resistance and that high resistance led to heating. That heating then led to thermal expansion of one of the components. That thermal expansion and heating enabled some of the potting components – that are around that joint to keep it secure from vibration – to flow.”
Once the potting compound used to secure electrical connections was able to heat up and essentially melt – or began to flow – the electrical connection become unsecured and led to the interruption in electrical current throughout the second-stage. Beck stated that “when the video stops (in the webcast) is exactly the point (of failure).” Although the video cut out, Rocket Lab ground stations continued to receive telemetry data of the flight’s progress due to the amount of redundancy with the systems aboard Electron “telemetry is the only way you can reconstruct this stuff so we have a very high priority of those (data) channels” Beck said.
With the immense amount of data that was received during the flight and throughout the second-stage shutdown Rocket Lab was able to quickly determine the cause of the error and perform tests to determine exactly what occurred during the failed flight. “The vehicle as it flies every flight has just a huge amount of instrumentation. That coupled with a graceful shutdown coupled with full telemetry stream throughout the whole anomaly, we were really able to quickly reconstruct what happened” Beck said.
The vast amount of data and the ability to sufficiently replicate the incident now means that Rocket Lab has a plan of action in place to mitigate any failures – of this nature – on future missions. “We can actually mitigate (the anomaly) very easily through a slight change in production processes, but more importantly we can screen for it in our current vehicles and stock through more in-depth testing procedures.”
To that end, the Rocket Lab Electron is set to return to flight in August, an impeccable turn around time following an anomaly investigation.”I’m very proud of the way the team has been able to identify this issue and rectify it so quickly” Beck said. He gave high praise to the entire Rocket Lab team for relentlessly working toward determining, not only the cause of the anomaly but working toward a solution for a quick return to flight. “Literally ten minutes after we saw some anomalous behavior during the flight, the team already started to work it and they haven’t stopped. They’ve been relentless” Beck said.
The customer payload that will fly aboard the return to flight and fourteenth mission of Electron launch is expected to be announced very soon. Rocket Lab did state that following a successful launch from the LC-1A complex in New Zealand, the following mission would be the first to take place from the brand new Launch Complex 2 located at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA Wallops in Virginia. Although an American private company, Rocket Lab predominately launches from New Zealand. The upcoming mission will be the first Electron flight to occur from American soil.
Beck closed the media briefing by stating that Rocket Lab looks forward to returning to operational status and launching Electrons every month, if not bi-weekly. He expressed that Rocket Lab is looking to the future and hopes to achieve a full recovery effort of the first stage booster via a helicopter and a specially designed grappling hook with the seventeenth flight of Electron. He also hinted that “there’ll be a couple of other little surprises as well, as we execute some other programs that have been cooking up in the background.”
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
