News
SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon spacecraft nears space station with 2.5 tons of cargo
Following a successful May 4th launch atop Falcon 9, SpaceX’s latest Cargo Dragon spacecraft is just a few hours away from starting its International Space Station (ISS) berthing sequence.
Scheduled to begin around 5:30 am EDT (09:30 UTC), SpaceX operations staff will command Dragon to continue a cautious ISS approach. Several hours later, the spacecraft will be quite literally grabbed by station astronauts and gently berthed with one of the space station’s several Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) ports. Once Cargo Dragon has been safely joined with the ISS, the station’s crew of astronauts can begin the intensive process of unpacking more than 1500 kg (3300 lb) of pressurized cargo, including dozens of time-sensitive and complex science experiments.
Aside from the 1.5 tons of cargo contained inside Dragon’s climate-controlled cabin, ISS astronauts and ground-based NASA controllers will again use the space station’s robotic Canadarm2 manipulator to extract two large unpressurized payloads from Dragon’s trunk. The ‘flagship’ instrument of CRS-17 is NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3), an upgraded follow-on to OCO-2 that should dramatically improve the quantity and quality of data available on the distribution of carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere. The second trunk-stashed payload is known as STP-H6 and is carrying around half a dozen distinct experiments.
Both STP-H6 and OCO-3 will be installed on the outside of the space station with the help of Canadarm2, an extremely useful capability that limits the need for astronauts to suit up and perform risky and time-consuming EVAs (extra-vehicular activities) outside the ISS. With its trunk emptied, Cargo Dragon will eventually discard the section to burn up in Earth’s atmosphere just before the reusable capsule begins its own reentry.
Unlike several other spacecraft with service sections, both proposed, flying, or retired, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft strive to minimize the complexity and cost of their expendable service sections. For both Cargo and Crew Dragon, the trunk serves as a structural adapter for unpressurized payloads and the Falcon-Dragon interface, hosts solar arrays and radiators, and doesn’t do much else. All propulsion, plumbing, and major avionics are kept within the capsule to maximize reusability.
Defining “slow and steady”
The process of berthing or docking with the ISS is a fundamentally cautious thing, developed by NASA, Roscosmos, and other international partners through forced and painful trial and error. In short, the road to today’s cautious procedures has been paved with countless failures and close calls over decades of space activity. For Cargo Dragon, the process involves berthing, more passive and less complex than docking. Outside of a dozen or so meters, the processes begin quite similarly. Cargo Dragon (Dragon 1) will very slowly approach the station’s several-hundred-meter keep out zone, typically no faster than a few m/s (mph).
Then follows a back-and-forth process of stop and go, in which SpaceX commands Dragon forward, halts at set locations, verifies performance and station readiness with NASA, and repeat. Once within 10 or so meters of the ISS, Dragon will begin carefully stationkeeping, essentially a version of formation flying without a hint of aerodynamic forces. ISS astronauts will then command the Canadarm2 robotic arm toward a sort of target/handle combo located on the spacecraft. The arm follows similar stop-start procedures before finally grappling Dragon, at which point the astronauts in command are legally required (/s) to quip something along the lines of “We’ve caught ourselves a Dragon!”
From start to finish, the process takes about 1.5 hours under optimal conditions. Around 2.5 hours after that, Canadarm2 will physically berth Dragon with one of several ISS berthing ports. Soon after, station astronauts can open Dragon’s hatch, snag some fresh goodies, and begin the unpacking process. CRS-17’s ISS arrival operations will be covered live on NASA TV.
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
