News
SpaceX had a big year: 2016 year in review
On December 21, 2016, SpaceX celebrated the one-year anniversary of Falcon 9’s first ever successful stage one landing, leaving their mark on history with the first rocket to ever do so after delivering a payload into orbit. The mission delivered 11 ORBCOMM satellites into low-Earth orbit to complete a 17-satellite constellation network.
Several videos were published with footage of the event last year, but National Geographic gave us a behind-the-scenes look at Elon Musk’s emotional ride while it was happening as an anniversary treat.
The first landing anniversary wasn’t the only thing to come out of 2016, however, and what a year it was!
MORE HISTORIC SPACEX LANDINGS
On April 8, 2016, SpaceX made history again, that time by landing Falcon 9’s first stage booster onto the “Of Course I Still Love You” autonomous droneship in the Atlantic Ocean off the Florida coast. The mission’s payload was a Dragon capsule cargo shipment to the International Space Station (“ISS”) named CRS-8, itself containing an important space technology demonstration for expandable habitats. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (“BEAM”) carried in the Dragon capsule was later successfully docked to the ISS and inflated as planned.
On May 5, 2016, SpaceX landed yet another first stage booster on drone ship “Of Course I Still Love You”, but the destination of its payload was geostationary transfer orbit (“GTO”), about 36,000 kilometers above the Earth vs. the 160 to 2000 kilometer height of low-Earth orbit previously achieved before a landing. The higher GTO orbit brought the first stage of Falcon 9 to a much faster speed and higher reentry heating than the previous missions, making the successful landing yet another one for the history books. Its payload was the JCSAT-14 commercial communications satellite.
Falcon 9 on the droneship after launching JCSAT-14 | Credit: SpaceX
Another successful GTO mission with a droneship landing was completed on May 27, 2016, and its THAICOM-8 payload was then delivered to a supersynchronous transfer orbit of 91,000 kilometers high. The third time broke the charm, however, and on June 15, 2016, after a successful insertion of Eutelsat 117 West B and ABS-2A satellites into GTO, the Falcon 9 first stage was lost due to early engine shutdown from lack of fuel.
Looks like early liquid oxygen depletion caused engine shutdown just above the deck pic.twitter.com/Sa6uCkpknY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2016
Undeterred, SpaceX successfully landed one more booster on August 16, 2016 during its JCSAT-16 mission to GTO. “Of Course I Still Love You” was the droneship used once again.
First stage landing confirmed on the droneship. Second stage & JCSAT-16 continuing to orbit https://t.co/tdni5406Hi pic.twitter.com/h6llIXSVu7
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 14, 2016
A FEW SETBACKS FOR SPACEX
September 1, 2016 is a day that will potentially live in both conspiratorial and procedural dispute infamy due to SpaceX’s launch pad anomaly during its fueling process. Whether the description of choice of the event is “fast fire”, “explosion”, or “fireball”, the result was the same: a complete loss of the Falcon 9 rocket, its payload, and the ability to use Space Launch Complex 40 in the near future.
Still working on the Falcon fireball investigation. Turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2016
The AMOS-6 satellite aboard the rocket was owned by Israel-based Spacecom Ltd. and had been part of a $95 million dollar leasing deal between Facebook and Eutelsat to provide internet access to the non-connected parts of the world.
Per SpaceX’s last update, the investigation and FAA report on the anomaly are still pending and have focused on a breach in the loading of the cryogenic helium system of the 2nd stage liquid oxygen (“LOX”) tank.
Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2016
Falcon 9 isn’t expected to return to flight until January 2017 now that the launch with the Iridium-1 satellite payload was delayed from the tentative December 16th date. The FAA report must be completed prior to further launch approvals. The chain reaction of delayed launches has only cost the loss of one SpaceX customer to another launch provider thus far.
Due to extensive damage to Space Launch Complex 40 from the anomaly, future launches from the east coast will take place from historic Apollo-era Launch Complex 39A. SpaceX has been renovating the pad for Falcon Heavy launches. Also resulting from the anomaly was a delay in the first Falcon Heavy launch to early 2017.
SPACEX PUSHES ONWARD
Throughout 2016, SpaceX continued to work on its Crew Dragon capsule as part of its competition with Boeing to provide human flight capabilities from American soil via NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The tentative test launch date for the capsule was set for late 2017, but unfortunately, it was pushed back into May of 2018. Earlier in the year, Boeing also delayed its launch date to August 2018.
Crew Dragon during launch abort test | Credit: SpaceX
ELON MUSK REVEALS SPACEX’S MARS PLAN
Finally, at the end of September, Elon announced SpaceX’s plan to put a million people on Mars by the 2060s via its Interplanetary Transport System, also affectionately named BFR (“Big F*ing Rocket”).
Full Interplanetary Tranport System presentation in ~30 mins. Simulation preview: https://t.co/lKAxabzfKX
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 27, 2016
A video was released prior to the September 27th, 2016 International Astronautical Conference announcement in Guadalajara, Mexico illustrating the full system concept. The animation was based on the actual CAD renderings in development, per Elon’s talk.
SpaceX ITS Stage 1 landing graphic | Credit: SpaceX
Plenty of goodies were revealed about SpaceX’s plans including the passenger habitat, entertainment intentions for travelers, and technical specifications surrounding the system’s size, engines, and fuel systems. While the presentation itself was exciting, many questions were still left unanswered such as more specifics on radiation dangers and the long-term effects of microgravity.
SUMMARY
Overall, 2016 brought a rollercoaster of successes and setbacks for SpaceX, but the business of rocket launching wasn’t expected to be an easy one. The phrase, “Rockets are hard” isn’t a simple excuse to explain away failures, but rather an accepted cost of being in the field.
Throughout the year, SpaceX has managed to maintain public and government faith in its mission to advance human space exploration despite any setbacks. In July, NASA ordered a second commercial crew mission from the company, and then they followed up in November with a contract to launch an Earth surface-water-analyzing satellite in 2021.
SpaceX also received a number of recognitions for its work environment and achievements, including making Glassdoor’s Top 50 Places to Work and being awarded the 2016 World Technology Award for space.
Oh, and if it seems all that isn’t enough for SpaceX to have on its plate, in November the company filed a request with the FCC to launch over 4,000 communication satellites as part of their goal of building a hi-speed satellite internet constellation.
There’s a lot to look forward to in 2017 and beyond. Onwards!
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
