News
SpaceX beats Falcon 9 recovery records after company’s heaviest launch ever
Completed on May 30th, SpaceX’s latest Falcon 9 booster recovery smashed several internal speed records, unofficially cataloged over the years by watchful fans.
In short, as the company’s experienced recovery technicians continue to gain experience and grow familiar with Falcon 9 Block 5, the length of booster recoveries have consistently decreased in the 12 months since Block 5’s launch debut. Already, the efficiency of recovery processing has gotten to the point that – once SpaceX optimizes Block 5’s design for refurbishment-free reuse – there should be no logistical reason the company can’t fly the same booster twice in ~24-48 hours.
The road to rapid reusability
Rarely will it make headlines, but the fact remains that SpaceX’s ultimate goal is not just to reuse Falcon 9 (and other) boosters, but to do so with a level of routine efficiency approaching that of modern passenger aircraft. It’s reasonable to assume that chemical rockets might never reach those capabilities, but they may certainly be able to improve enough to radically change the relationship between humans and spaceflight.
Along that line of thinking, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decided years ago that an excellent representative goal for Falcon 9 would be to launch the same booster twice in 24 hours. In the last year or so, that largely arbitrary target has changed a bit and is now believed to be a bit wider, aiming for booster reuse within a few days of recovery. This is a pragmatic adjustment more than a technical criticism of Falcon 9.
In general, Falcon 9 simply doesn’t have the performance necessary for routine reusability timelines measured in hours. The majority of SpaceX launches need enough of Falcon 9’s performance to necessitate recovery aboard one of SpaceX’s two drone ships, typically stationed at least a 200-300 km (100-200 mi) offshore. That fact alone almost single-handedly kills any chance of sub-24-hour booster reuse, given that the process of towing the booster-carrying drone ship back to port happens at a max speed of ~10 mph (15 km/h). Just gaining permission to enter the port itself often involves waits of 6+ hours a few miles offshore.
Low orbit, low mass Falcon 9 missions are much more promising for extremely rapid reusability, given that both of SpaceX’s West and East coast landing zones are located just a few miles (or less than 1500 feet, in the case of LZ-4) from their corresponding launch pads and processing facilities. However, these missions are quite rare, while SpaceX’s own low Earth orbit (LEO) Starlink launches will likely involve payloads so heavy that long-distance drone ship recoveries will be necessary.
Finally, there are Falcon Heavy launches, most of which will allow for both side boosters to return to the Florida coast for landings at LZ-1/LZ-2. However, these pose their own barriers to rapid reuse, mainly due to the fact that side boosters – while technically just Falcon 9 boosters – would need major changes to support a single-stack Falcon 9 launch. Falcon Heavy launches simply aren’t going to happen back-to-back over a period of 24-48 hours, so that option is also out of the question.
This means that SpaceX’s only real option for practical rapid reuse is to instead focus on something closer to a weekly launch capability for Block 5 boosters, meaning that the same booster would be able to launch, land, return to shore, and prepare for the next launch in the same week. Even then, launch site readiness may still stand in the way of truly radical improvements in booster reuse and launch frequency. After each launch, SpaceX’s pads and transporter/erectors take a significant beating, requiring routine repairs and maintenance before returning to flight-readiness. Barring major improvements, SpaceX has demonstrated minimum launch-to-launch times of roughly 10 days, and cutting that figure by 50-90% will be a major challenge for a rocket as powerful as Falcon 9.
B1049 takes a step forward
Despite the many logistical reasons that Falcon 9 will likely never lend itself to routine ~24-hour reusability, having that latent capability would still mean that the hardware is advanced enough to offer that efficiency. Even if SpaceX can’t literally fly each booster at its operational capacity, nearly refurbishment-free reflights will still translate into dramatically lower launch costs. Modern civilian aircraft need not fly every second of every day to still be affordable to operate (excluding amortization costs).
Ultimately, SpaceX has been taking small steps in that direction ever since the company began recovering (and reusing) Falcon 9 boosters. Falcon 9 B1049’s third recovery has been one of the best (and most record-breaking) steps yet, but those records were only just broken The most significant statistic to come out of the post-Starlink v0.9 recovery is that B1049.3 took less than 30 hours to go from docking in port to being horizontal on a SpaceX booster transporter. The previous record-holder was Falcon 9 B1046.2, requiring approximately 40 hours for the same feat. B1049.3 also holds the record for fastest recovery overall – just 48 hours from docking to being transported to a SpaceX hangar – but only beat B1051 by about half an hour. In general, Falcon 9 Block 5 has been privy to consistently quick recovery operations and B1049 is just the latest in a long line of reusable SpaceX rockets.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
