Bloomberg reports that SpaceX has approached Goldman Sachs in hopes of arranging a $500M leveraged loan, potentially opening up an entirely new avenue of capital for the company as it approaches inflection points in its two largest development programs, the Starlink internet satellite constellation and its next-generation BFR rocket and spaceship.
In the United States, the market for leveraged loans (a form of debt capital) has experienced unprecedented growth in 2018, soaring past $1.3 trillion total. Unlike borrowers typically pursuing leveraged loans, SpaceX has little to no debt to speak of and is likely either financially stable or even healthily profitable.
The fact that SpaceX is not already heavily leveraged (i.e. lots of debt) indicates that the company’s interest in this type of loan – versus something more like traditional equity sales – arises from the need for capital to fund major one-time investments that are likely to peak within the next 2-3 years, if not sooner. Leveraged loans are typically classified as riskier investments due to the tendency for borrowers to already have plenty of debt: in the case of SpaceX, it’s clear that that risk derives more from the fundamentally risky nature of space-related endeavors.
Success is not guaranteed even if SpaceX has plenty of funds to invest in satellite constellation or rocket R&D, while major one-time expenditures like the construction of a new launch pad and test facility for BFR also carry the risk of potentially catastrophic destruction in the event of a vehicle failure during testing or launch, one case that was proven out during the September 2016 on-pad failure of a Falcon 9 rocket, multiple times smaller than BFR. Leveraged loans still are likely to work in SpaceX’s favor, drawing in investors already willing to accept that inherent risk when the potential rewards of success are immense.
“The benefits of this maiden voyage [into leveraged loan borrowing] are clear: SpaceX should have ample funding needs for many years to come as it keeps Mars in its sights. Crucially for Musk, loans are more private than most other forms of capital raising — and very hard to short.”
Starlink
While the exact status of SpaceX’s major development programs is not public, it can be reasonably intuited that the company’s Starlink constellation is likely in the process of restructuring an R&D-centered experimental wing into something closer to a factory. Such a factory will be an absolute necessity if SpaceX intends to mass-produce high-performance smallsats at a truly unprecedented scale: ~4500 satellites make up the first wave of the constellation alone, while nearly ~7500 more would eventually follow to allow Starlink to truly blanket the world with fast internet access.
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural Feb. 2018 launch, showing off a utilitarian design. (SpaceX)
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
BFR
SpaceX’s Big F____ Rocket – deemed Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) in public statements – is no less capital-hungry. Aside from major investments in tooling and the lengthy and return-free process of designing such a large, complex, and advanced launch vehicle, SpaceX is in the process of preparing a site for a dedicated BFR factory at Port of Los Angeles. Currently housed in a huge temporary tent, it’s already clear that spaceship prototype fabrication could benefit greatly from workspace expansions and a more controlled environment. Long-term, such a factory will be a basic necessity for SpaceX to begin true serial production of BFR boosters and spaceships.
In South Texas, SpaceX is also beginning the expensive process of constructing some combination of a launch pad and testing facility dedicated to the BFR program. Most recently, two massive propellant storage tanks have arrived at a nearby facility at the same time as construction is beginning in earnest on the circa-2014 site of SpaceX’s proposed launch pad.
-
- SpaceX’s initial BFR work is being performed in a giant temporary tent located at Port of LA. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Yusaku Maezawa stands on the first BFR composite tank/fuselage section prior to his Sept. 17 announcement. (Yusaku Maezawa)
-
- SpaceX’s massive BFR mandrel, used to mold its composite structures. (SpaceX)
Ultimately, the company could benefit immensely from an infusion of free capital, if for no other reason than to expedite critical infrastructure investments that will become the foundation for Starlink and BFR.
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
