News
SpaceX Starlink launch to smash California pad turnaround record
Update: SpaceX’s Thursday Starlink 3-2 launch was automatically aborted less than a minute before liftoff by Falcon 9’s onboard computers. The company will try again tomorrow, Friday, July 22nd, at 10:39 pm PDT (17:39 UTC).
SpaceX says it’s on track to launch another batch of polar Starlink satellites from the West Coast as early as 10:39 am PDT (17:39 UTC), Thursday, July 21st.
On top of featuring one of the fastest Falcon 9 booster turnarounds ever, SpaceX’s Starlink 3-2 launch will more than halve the fastest turnaround of its Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) SLC-4E pad, potentially rendering it capable of launching dozens of times per year.
Barring delays, Starlink 3-2 is scheduled to launch from SLC-4E just 10 days and 14 hours after the same pad supported Starlink 3-1. The current record – 22 days and 11 hours – was set between the launches of Germany’s SARah-1 radar satellite and Starlink 3-1, meaning that SLC-4E is on track to break its turnaround record twice in a row.
For most of the time since SpaceX began using SLC-4E for Falcon 9 launches in 2013, the pad has rarely supported more than one launch every few months. Between 2013 and 2020, the pad supported a total of 16 successful Falcon 9 launches. 15 occurred between January 2016 and November 2020, averaging one launch every four months and never flying twice in less than 36 days. Between January 2019 and September 2021, the pad only supported three launches and even went 17 months without a single use.
In late 2021, something changed. On top of the introduction of dedicated West Coast Starlink launches, apparent upgrades to the pad’s turnaround capabilities have allowed it to support more launches than usual. In the ten months since SLC-4E exited its hibernation period, it’s supported nine Falcon 9 launches – five for Starlink and four for customers. Prior to 2021, SLC-4E never supported more than six launches in a ten-month period, meaning that the pad is already operating at a 50% higher capacity.
SpaceX, however, apparently wasn’t satisfied and is on track to substantially expand SLC-4’s operational constraints yet again, more than halving its minimum demonstrated turnaround time. By definition, that also doubles the pad’s operational ceiling, meaning that it could theoretically support about 34 launches per year with no downtime. SpaceX appears to have achieved that expansion by applying the same upgrades it already made to its two East Coast launch pads, LC-39A and LC-40, which both set respective turnaround records of approximately nine days and eight days earlier this year. SLC-4E will comfortably bookend the two with its imminent 10.7-day turnaround.
Of course, no launch pad routinely operates at its demonstrated minimum, but a leap forward like SLC-4E’s (22.5 to 10.7 days) all but guarantees that the pad will be able to launch far more frequently as long as rockets and payloads are available. Over the last seven months, LC-39A has averaged one launch every 19 days – more than twice its 9.1-day turnaround record. LC-40, which generally deals with simpler missions and only one of three Falcon rocket variants, has managed one launch every 13 days over the same period – closer to its 8.2-day record but still a ways off.
Even if SLC-4E’s average cadence settles somewhere between SpaceX’s other two pads going forward, it will still likely double its contribution the company’s annual launch cadence and help expedite the deployment of its Starlink internet constellation. If all three pads manage an average of about one launch every two weeks, a target that’s well within reach, SpaceX will have the capacity to launch 72 Falcon rockets per year – more than any other family of rockets in history.
Pad aside, Starlink 3-2 will be Falcon 9 booster B1071’s fourth launch overall and second launch in 33 days – SoaceX’s fifth fastest Falcon booster reuse since the practice began in March 2017. Tune in below around 10:30 am PDT (17:30 UTC) to watch Falcon 9’s 32nd launch of 2022.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
