News
SpaceX gears up for busy year of Falcon Heavy launches
SpaceX is targeting no earlier than January 12th for the fifth launch of Falcon Heavy, the largest and most powerful commercial rocket in the world.
As was the case for the rocket’s third and fourth launches, the main customer behind its fifth launch is the US military. Deemed USSF-67, the mission is also expected to be very similar to Falcon Heavy’s most recent launch, USSF-44. That mission saw the massive SpaceX rocket complete its first direct launch to a geosynchronous orbit ~36,000 kilometers (~22,250 mi) above Earth’s surface, where it deployed a pair of spacecraft carrying several rideshare payloads and satellites. Save for the possibility that the US Space Force included secret payloads on USSF-44, the mission appeared to be more of a rocket test and loose collection of experiments than a major military launch.
USSF-67 will likely be similar. According to the US Space Systems Command (SSC), USSF-67 – like USSF-44 – will carry an Aerojet Rocketdyne Long Duration Propulsive EELV (LPDE) spacecraft as a main payload. Aboard LPDE-3A, which is essentially a satellite without a payload, various stakeholders will install an unknown number of experiments, instruments, and smaller satellites that can be activated or deployed once in orbit. The SSC says [PDF] that “LDPE provides critical data to inform future Space Force programs” and that “the unique experiments and prototype payloads hosted on LDPE-3A [will] advance warfighting capabilities in the areas of on-orbit threat assessment, space hazard detection, and space domain awareness.”
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
The mission will be Falcon Heavy’s second launch since June 2019 and is scheduled to lift off 72 days after the rocket’s USSF-44 launch, which finally ended its unplanned 1225-day hiatus. The schedule is reminiscent of 2019, when SpaceX launched its second and third Falcon Heavy rockets 75 days apart. The second of those two missions (STP-2) was primarily a test flight for the US Air Force (now the Space Force) meant to both push Falcon Heavy to its limits with a complex trajectory and demonstrate Falcon booster reusability. To accomplish the latter goal, STP-2 reused two of the three Falcon Heavy boosters that supported the rocket’s Arabsat 6A communications satellite launch two months prior. USSF-67 will also reuse both of USSF-44’s Falcon Heavy side boosters.
STP-2 was ultimately a near-flawless success, but endless payload delays left Falcon Heavy with nothing to launch for more than three years. Following its return to flight in late 2022, Falcon Heavy may finally be able to properly stretch its wings in 2023. Of course, this isn’t the first time that’s appeared to be the case. In February 2021, there were many signs that SpaceX was preparing to launch Falcon Heavy in mid-2021. And in late 2021, there were strong signs that SpaceX customers were on track for up to five Falcon Heavy launches in 2022.
Now, for the second time, there are five Falcon Heavy rockets tentatively scheduled to launch this year (2023). But the situation is not identical. Numerous long-delayed payloads like the first ViaSat-3 and Jupiter-3 satellites and the US military’s mysterious USSF-67 and USSF-52 spacecraft are finally on the cusp of crossing their respective finish lines. NASA’s Psyche asteroid explorer spacecraft has also survived a continuation review after running into major software issues that precluded a 2022 launch attempt. And Falcon Heavy finally launched USSF-44 – a chronically delayed mission – in November 2022.
Additionally, four of those five Falcon Heavy launches are tentatively scheduled in the first half of 2023, leaving plenty of margin for major delays in the second half of the year. But until ViaSat-3, Jupiter-3, and USSF-52 actually arrive in Florida and until NASA explicitly confirms that Psyche’s technical issues are resolved, any launch targets should be treated with extreme skepticism.
USSF-67 is thankfully much less uncertain. Like Arabsat 6A and STP-2, USSF-67 will reuse both of the Falcon Heavy side boosters recovered after USSF-44. Mirroring USSF-44, SpaceX will also intentionally expend Falcon Heavy’s new center booster to launch USSF-67 directly to geosynchronous orbit. Most importantly, LPDE-3A – the only confirmed USSF-67 payload – arrived in Florida in November 2022. USSF-67 prelaunch operations are currently running a day or two behind schedule relative to USSF-44, but all evidence indicates that the mission is on track to launch sometime in January 2023.
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
