News
SpaceX schedules next Starlink launch, fires up rocket for asteroid redirect mission
Update: SpaceX has successfully static fired the Falcon 9 tasked with launching DART. The rocket will now roll back to SLC-4’s integration hangar for payload installation before rolling out to the pad a second time.
SpaceX has scheduled its next East Coast Starlink launch just a few weeks after the latest as a different Falcon 9 rocket prepares to launch NASA’s DART asteroid redirection demonstration mission.
On Tuesday, NASA confirmed that a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is on track to launch the Double Asteroid Redirect Test (DART) spacecraft no earlier than (NET) 10:21 pm PST on Tuesday, November 23rd (06:21 UTC 24 Nov). Following the successful launch of NASA and the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Sentinel 6A spacecraft in November 2020 and the first launch of a full batch of laser-linked Starlink satellites on September 14th, DART will be SpaceX’s third West Coast launch in just over 12 months and the first time the company has launched out of Vandenberg twice in one year since 2019.
Up next, Spaceflight Now and launch photographer Ben Cooper recently confirmed that SpaceX has already scheduled its next Starlink launch after a successful mission on November 13th, aiming to deliver another batch of ~53 laser-linked satellites to orbit NET 1:36am EST (06:36 UTC), Wednesday, December 1st.
Oddly, Spaceflight Now’s launch calendar indicates that SpaceX’s next Starlink launch won’t help recent confusion over the constellations mission naming scheme. SpaceX’s most recent Starlink launch was deemed “Starlink 4-1,” which is explained below.
“In simple terms, the first ~4400-satellite phase of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation is split into five groups of satellites – known as shells – with different orbital altitudes and inclinations (the orbit’s tilt). In May, SpaceX’s most recent East Coast Starlink launch effectively completed the first of those five shells or groups. With Starlink V1.5’s September debut, SpaceX also debuted a new naming scheme, deeming the mission Starlink 2-1 – the first launch of the second shell. Based on the inclination implied in Starlink 4-1’s hazard warning, Shell 4 refers to a second group of 1584 satellites almost identical to Shell 1, while Shell 2 is a semi-polar group of 720 satellites. That means that Shells 3 and 5 are sets of either 340 or 158 satellites at slightly different altitudes in polar orbit and will likely be the last Phase 1 Starlink satellites SpaceX launches.”
Teslarati.com — November 7th, 2021
SpaceX’s next Starlink launch, however, is apparently named “Starlink 4-3,” implying that the company has either skipped a launch or was forced to swap the order of two missions for unknown reasons (perhaps the same reason that Starlink 2-3 – itself leapfrogging 2-2 – was indefinitely delayed from an original October launch target. In short, aside from being few and far between for unspecified reasons, the sequencing of SpaceX Starlink launches have been a mess in the second half of 2021 and it doesn’t look like that’s going to change anytime soon.
Barring the delay of one or several other missions, CEO Elon Musk’s recent statement that SpaceX is “aiming [to launch] 80 tons” or ~175,000 pounds of payload in Q4 2021 leaves room for two more Starlink launches (including 4-3) in the last six weeks of the year.
In the meantime, as early as November 23rd, SpaceX is scheduled to launch DART to an unspecified orbit – perhaps a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) but maybe directly into deep space, the latter of which would make it Falcon 9’s first launch beyond the Earth-Moon system. Despite the extremely light payload, Falcon 9 booster B1063 is expected to land at sea on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), which falls in favor of a high-velocity Earth escape launch.
A SpaceX, JHUAPL (Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab), and NASA team successfully mated the ~550-670 kg (1200-1500 lb) spacecraft to Falcon 9’s payload adapter on November 10th and are likely just a few days away from encapsulating DART inside the rocket’s comparatively massive payload fairing. Sans payload, Falcon 9 will likely roll out to SpaceX’s SLC-4E pad and perform a prelaunch static fire test any day now before heading back to the hangar for fairing installation.
Update: A NASASpaceflight.com forum member spotted Falcon 9 vertical while traveling by train past SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad, confirming that a static fire is imminent.
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
