News
Russia quietly shelves development of sole SpaceX Falcon 9-competitive rocket
Russian space agency Roscosmos has indefinitely suspended development of the Proton Medium rocket, once expected to help the country compete with the meteoric rise of SpaceX and the growing field of interested entrants in the commercial launch industry.
As Russia makes a greater push toward Angara rockets, it is sidelining development of Proton Medium, a vehicle ILS hoped would compete head on with SpaceX's Falcon 9. https://t.co/BD6AOusalK
— Caleb Henry (@ChenrySpace) August 30, 2018
The (probable) death of a rocket
In an extraordinary feat of double-speak, freshly appointed Roscosmos director general Dmitry Rogozin – likely a primary source of Proton Medium’s paused development – explained that Russia’s national rocket program would likely experience the “financial collapse of [its] enterprise” if it chose to build “both old and new heavy-duty rockets” simultaneously. Rogozin clearly implied that Angara – a Russian rocket that has flown once (successfully) in 2014 and has a commercial demand about as close to near-zero as possible – was the “new” rocket that Roscosmos ought to solely pursue.
Indeed, upon analyzing the public specifications of Angara A5 and Proton Medium, the two rockets have near-identical theoretical performance characteristics, with higher geostationary transfer orbit payload capabilities (5-6 tons) roughly comparable to Falcon 9 in the SpaceX rocket’s drone ship recovery configuration. As a result, it certainly would make very little sense for Russia to fund and build two rockets with nearly indistinguishable utility – Rogozin certainly is correct in that regard.
However, the space agency director is dumbfoundingly off-base in his suggestion that Angara – not Proton Medium or other proposed alternatives – is the way forward to a financially sustainable Roscosmos. As he himself notes, “eternal state support [of launch vehicles] is impossible and inefficient,” seemingly indicating that he believes any viable state-funded rocket must eventually become a serious commercial competitor, a necessity for a launch vehicle if it’s to sustain itself beyond subsidies (i.e. guaranteed government launch contracts).
https://twitter.com/runnymonkey/status/1030356053882544129
The “old” versus the “new”
The Proton family of rockets – past and present – may not have the most reliable track record or a consistent launch cadence, but nearly any rocket on Earth can lay claim to a more storied launch career when placed next to Angara. Despite the fact that the Russian government itself has funded the development and production of Angara rockets, just a single orbital mission has been launched, and only with a mass simulator (dead weight) as its payload. Since that one-off 2014 launch debut, not even the Russian government itself has chosen to fly state satellites on Angara, instead siding with other successful vehicles in the country’s fleet, including Proton Breeze M and Soyuz-2.
This is almost without a doubt because Angara A5 is the most expensive rocket Russia currently operates, reportedly 30-40% more expensive than Proton M, estimated in 2017 by the US Government Accountability Office to cost roughly $65 million per launch. At roughly a third more than that, an Angara A5 launch presumably costs ~$90 million in a best-case scenario, given that the manufacturing apparatus required to construct the rocket has been maintained on a manifest of exactly zero launches since 2014. In fact, the vehicle was estimated by Russia itself to cost roughly $95 to $105 million per launch back in 2015.
https://twitter.com/runnymonkey/status/1032371653668261888
In an interview with SpaceNews in late 2017, the president of the commercial wing of Russia’s space launch program (known as ILS) frankly stated that “[ILS] needs to target something between $65 [million] and $55 million as the price point [for Proton Medium], and the Angara 5 vehicle will not be able to do that.” In the same interview, the ILS president even went so far as to imply that “Proton Medium was being designed as a purely commercial competitor to SpaceX’s Falcon 9.”
While there is a very slim chance that Proton Medium’s development will be revived after Roscosmos’ internal review, it’s far safer to presume that the vehicle is dead, thus killing Russia’s only tenuous hope of fielding a rocket capable of competing with the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin. While Roscosmos’ goal is to make Angara (an entirely expendable rocket, might I add) more affordable, it anticipates that the rocket would become cost-competitive with Proton no earlier than 2025.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
