News
SpaceX tracks towards first launch of 2019 with flight-proven Falcon 9 static fire
SpaceX has completed a Falcon 9 static fire test ahead of the company’s first launch of 2019, kicking off what is looking to be a truly jam-packed year for Falcon 9 and BFR. Most important, of course, is SpaceX’s primary business and main sources of revenue – safely and reliably launching customer satellites, payloads, and – soon – astronauts into orbit.
Previously tasked with launching heavy communications satellite Telstar 18V in September 2018, Falcon 9 B1049 is now set to launch an arguably historic mission for both SpaceX and customer Iridium, the eighth and final contracted launch of the upgraded Iridium NEXT satellite communications constellation.
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete. Working with customer to determine best launch opportunity to complete the Iridium NEXT constellation; will announce targeted launch date once confirmed.
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) January 6, 2019
Struck all the way back in June 2010, Iridium’s decision to award the full NEXT constellation launch contract to SpaceX less than two weeks after Falcon 9’s first and only launch may well be the greatest calculated leap of faith in the history of commercial spaceflight. SpaceX did admittedly offer an unbeatable price ($492M for eight launches, $61.5M per launch) that may have allowed Iridium to afford a new constellation in the first place, but the risk Iridium took was truly immense at the time.
Originally launched between 1997 and 1998, the first Iridium constellation became and still remains the only satellite communications constellation in history to offer global and persistent coverage anywhere on Earth, allowing those with Iridium devices to guarantee connectivity no matter where they are. To some extent, the original constellation has become a subtle but omnipresent backbone of a huge variety of ventures, companies, and services, ranging from marine vessel tracking and emergency response to the go-to solution for those heading far off the beaten path. As just one small example, SpaceX’s large fleet of sea-going vessels and its cross-country transport infrastructure both rely on Iridium for streamlined company-wide movement tracking, making life considerably easier for logistics and planning teams.
@SpaceX #falcon9 vertical at SLC-4. Iridium NEXT-8 slated for 01/08 from #VandenbergAFB. #spacex #iridium pic.twitter.com/uJBIgG5Lrp
— Brian Sandoval (@sandovalphotos) January 6, 2019
Iridium’s decision to use SpaceX for its NEXT constellation likely also gave SpaceX a massive stature boost, taking it from the company with just a handful of commercial contracts that had failed three of its last five launches to the company that secured what was at the time the largest single commercial launch contract in history. Alongside NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transport Services (COTS) and Resupply Services (CRS) commitments (~14 launches as of 2010), Iridium NEXT raised SpaceX’s commercial manifest from perhaps 2 missions to ~10 while also taking the value of those contracts from an almost negligible sum to well over half a billion dollars.
Although SpaceX and Iridium originally planned for launches to take place over a roughly 24-month period stretch from 2015 to 2017, unplanned technical delays and a duo of catastrophic Falcon 9 failures (CRS-7 and Amos-6) in 2015 and 2016 ultimately pushed Iridium NEXT’s launch debut back several years. Despite those immense hurdles and a range of smaller issues, SpaceX and Iridium were finally able to begin launching satellites in January 2017 and have continued to consistently do so every 3-4 months since then. Aside from one partial NASA rideshare mission that featured five NEXT satellites in May 2018, all seven launches have placed ten NEXT satellites (weighing approx. 10,000 kg or 22,000 lb total) in a variety of low polar orbits without a single known hitch.
-
- A rare glimpse inside SpaceX’s SLC-4 rocket integration hangar, January 2017. (SpaceX)
-
- Iridium-7’s Falcon 9 payload fairing, July 2018. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- LEO communications satellites like Iridium’s NEXT constellation feature totally flat panels of phased array antennas, capable of forming beams digitally. (Harris)
Falcon 9 enters the era of reusability
Closely following SES, NASA, and SSL (BulgariaSat), Iridium also became the fourth commercial entity to launch on a flight-proven Falcon 9 rocket for the launch vehicle’s fourth flight-proven mission ever. Iridium-8 will become the fourth constellation launch to fly aboard a sooty Falcon 9 rocket, meaning that a full 50% of the next-gen satellites will have launched on reused rockets, easily one of the coolest bragging rights ever. Currently standing at 65 NEXT satellites in orbit and rapidly nearing operational status, Falcon 9 B1049 and a fresh upper stage will (fingers crossed) place the last ten satellites in orbit to complete the constellation’s last plane and seal the last gap in its perfect global coverage.
Although NEXT would have been valuable for the sole reason that its predecessor satellites are now 5-10 years past their designed lifespans, NEXT will also serve to dramatically increase Iridium’s overall bandwidth, slash concurrent user bottlenecks, and provide a platform for new services like Aireon, which hopes to become the first operator of a truly commercial aircraft tracking service with global satellite-based coverage.
-
- Falcon 9 B1041.2 seen before launching Iridium-5. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Iridium-1’s successful and scenic landing on Pacific drone ship JRTI, January 2017. This could be an increasingly rare occurrence in the Pacific, thanks to SpaceX’s new land-based landing zone. (SpaceX)
-
- 2017 saw SpaceX recovery 10 Falcon 9 first stages, 5 by sea. (SpaceX)
All things considered, it will be hugely bittersweet to watch Iridium and SpaceX’s direct relationship come to a close with the launch of Iridium-8. Aside from nine additional on-orbit spares once all 75 are launched, Iridium will also have a complement of six more spares that will be kept in storage on the ground until they are required in orbit. If or when those times come, SpaceX will be able to compete with other launch providers for the opportunity to carry maybe one or two Iridium satellites – likely as rideshare payloads – into orbit sometime in the future.
Iridium open to rideshares for spare satellite launches https://t.co/ino39oWCHw pic.twitter.com/56PTcaEMW3
— SpaceNews (@SpaceNews_Inc) January 4, 2019
In the meantime, stay tuned for Iridium-8’s official launch time and date, likely to be announced by SpaceX sometime within the next 24-48 hours.
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
