News
SpaceX changes the game with 100th rocket launch
Ending exactly five months of delays, SpaceX has completed the first polar launch from Florida in more than half a century, potentially changing the game for the US launch industry.
Coincidentally SpaceX’s 100th launch ever, the SAOCOM 1B mission’s success could significantly redefine what current and future US launch providers are able to achieve with a single launch pad. To pull it off, SpaceX managed to thread the needle between Florida storm cells, avoiding the same fate as the Starlink-11 mission that was scrubbed by inclement weather earlier today. Prior to that delay, SpaceX was targeting – and, based on past performance, would have likely achieved – two orbital Falcon 9 launches and landings in less than ten hours, what would have easily been the quickest back-to-back commercial missions in history.
At 7:18 pm EDT (UTC-4), Falcon 9 booster B1059 lifted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) for the fourth time in nine months. The rocket performed perfectly, sending an expendable Falcon 9 second stage (S2), a payload fairing, SAOCOM 1B, and two rideshare payloads on their way to orbit. Eight minutes after launch and roughly six minutes after stage separate, B1059 successfully returned to SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Landing Zone (LZ-1) for a soft landing, becoming the first booster to do so in almost six months.
A brisk four minutes after Falcon 9’s first second stage engine cut-off (SECO) and orbital insertion, the rocket gently deployed the ~3000 kg (~6600 lb) SAOCOM 1B satellite. The Argentinian spacecraft extended its own solar arrays and began generating power just a few minutes later.
More than an hour after launch, rideshare payloads GNOMES-1 and Tyvak-0172 deployed as planned, officially completing the Falcon family’s 93rd fully-successful launch. Falcon 9 B1059’s fourth landing was also SpaceX’s 58th since the first successful booster recovery in December 2015.
While an otherwise routine and unexceptional mission, SpaceX has now proven that it’s possible for commercial launch providers to fly to polar orbits – orbits centered around Earth’s poles – from the East Coast. Since 1969, Cape Canaveral (and, far less often, Virginia’s Wallops) launch facilities have offered access to low Earth orbits, geostationary orbits, medium Earth orbits, lunar orbits, and interplanetary trajectories – just shy of anything but polar or sun synchronous orbit (SSO). To reach those orbits, launch providers have traditionally built entirely separate launch facilities on the US West Coast, mostly limited to California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) or, much less often, Kodiak, Alaska.
Building launch pads from scratch – or even reusing portions of old pads – is an extremely expensive and time-consuming endeavor, often taking at least 12-24 months and tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Blue Origin, for reference, is likely spending $500 million to $1 billion or more to build a Falcon Heavy-class launch pad from scratch for its first orbital rocket, New Glenn. While much smaller rockets from startups like Firefly and Relativity need proportionally smaller and cheaper launch pads, pad construction still end ups being a major expense and hurdle for new entrants. Both Firefly and Relativity have already publicized plans to build two separate launch facilities at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral.
Now, given enough excess performance for any given payload, it may well be possible for companies like them – particularly Relativity – to move directly to Florida without having to sacrifice polar and SSO launch capabilities that are most commonly used by small satellites. For Blue Origin, it could potentially save the company years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars if it can avoid having to build a second New Glenn launch pad in California. ULA has already expressed interest in exploring East Coast polar launches for its next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket, potentially preventing the need for expensive changes to one of its California launch pads.
It remains to be seen if the US military will ultimately certify the new Eastern polar launch corridor for its high-value payloads and it’s unclear if the new corridor has any major inclination or cadence restrictions, but it’s safe to say that existing providers are going to eagerly take advantage of this new capability.
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
