SpaceX has completed its 21st Falcon 9 launch of 2022, continuing an impressive average cadence of more than one launch per week.
After an unexplained 40-minute delay from 6:20 am EDT, former Falcon Heavy booster B1052 lifted off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A shortly after sunrise at 6:59 am EDT (10:59 UTC) on Wednesday, May 18th. Carrying its second batch of Starlink satellites on its third mission as a Falcon 9 boosters and fifth launch overall, Falcon B1052 performed flawlessly, safely carrying a reused Falcon fairing, expendable upper stage, and stack of 53 Starlink satellites most of the way free of Earth’s atmosphere.
B1052 then separated and coasted back to Earth as Falcon 9’s upper stage continued to orbit. About nine minutes after liftoff, the booster touched down on drone ship A Shortfall of Gravitas (ASOG) and the upper stage reached a safe parking orbit, marking the premature end of SpaceX’s official webcast. Starlink satellite deployment – typically anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes after liftoff – now occurs off-camera, with only a slight vocal confirmation and a tweet from SpaceX to verify the most important part of each mission.
Looking beyond the bounds of calendar years, Starlink 4-18 is SpaceX’s 28th successful launch since November 11th, 2021 – a period of six months and seven days or 27 weeks. In other words, SpaceX is already more than half of the way to demonstrating a sustained cadence of one launch per week over a full 12 months, leaving little doubt that the company has the ability to achieve CEO Elon Musk’s lesser goal of 52 launches in 2022. The company’s launch teams, processing facilities, launch pads, Falcon production, and fleets of reusable boosters and fairings have proven themselves fully capable.
The only remaining uncertainty stems from reliability and unknown unknowns. Even the most reliable rocket in the world is a highly complex system that can still fail in thousands of unique ways. After an impressive streak of 130 consecutively successful launch campaigns, Falcon 9 is by some measures the most reliable launch vehicle still in operation. As early as June 2022, however, Falcon 9 will have an opportunity to set the record for most consecutive successes of any rocket in history when it attempts to launch without fail for the 134th time in a row. For now, Russia’s R-7 or Soyuz family of rockets – which have launched close to 2000 times since 1966 – hold the current record of 133 consecutive successes. Technically, if one considers Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy part of the same family, R-7/Soyuz and Falcon are now tied with records of 133 consecutive successes.
However, the differences between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy far exceed the relatively small differences between the many slight R-7/Soyuz variations. Given that the variants of Falcon 9 rockets that began SpaceX’s current streak of success in January 2017 were significantly different than those flying today, the full R-7/Soyuz family and Falcon 9 are more directly and fairly comparable than they might initially appear.
Regardless, SpaceX will have accomplished an extraordinary feat if Falcon 9 does complete its 134th successful launch in a row sometime next month. But simultaneously, R-7’s 133-launch record serves as a reminder that at one point in history, an entirely different rocket family that had been averaging more than one launch per week for almost a decade still failed after 133 successful launches. Modern airliners serve as another good reminder of the inherent instability of complex artificial mechanisms: even though they are statistically one of the safest forms of mass transit humans have ever created, they still occasionally crash.
To assume any such system has become immune to failure after a number of successes is to tempt fate. Nonetheless, with the qualification that there are no guarantees, SpaceX’s performance over the last five years significantly raises confidence in the company’s ability to continue executing and completing orbital launches at a rapid pace throughout 2022 (and beyond) without failure.
Beyond Starlink 4-18, SpaceX is scheduled to launch its own Transporter-5 rideshare mission as early as May 25th, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-25 space station supply mission on June 7th, Egypt’s Nilesat-301 communications satellite on June 10th, and a number of other unspecified commercial launches and Starlink missions in June and July.
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
