News
SpaceX competitor Blue Origin touts 25-reuse future rocket as R&D continues
A spokesperson for Blue Origin, the reusable rocket company funded by Jeff Bezos and one of the only serious prospective SpaceX competitors, reiterated an oft-used claim that its orbital New Glenn rocket has been designed with reusability in mind “from the start” and stated that the vehicle’s booster is expected to fly 25 times, while its BE-4 engines can expect to see as many as 100 reuses.
Ariane Cornell, Blue Origin’s head of business development and strategy, provided her comments as part of a satellite and rocket hardware panel at the Hong Kong-hosted CASBAA 2018 conference, mainly focused on major participants in the Asian satellite broadcasting industry, for which SpaceX has launched a number of satellites with several more soon to come.
Correction from Ariane: New Glenn first stage can do 25 missions, BE-4 engines designed for 100 flights each.
— Caleb Henry (@ChenrySpace) June 25, 2018
While scarcely anything has changed in the last 12 months, that in itself is hugely noteworthy – SpaceX remains almost completely unchallenged in the space launch industry, at least in terms of investing in R&D for the purpose of dramatically decreasing the cost of orbital launches. While they have yet to dramatically cut the customer-side prices of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, it’s all but guaranteed that the sustainable ability to do so is not only already in place but improving day by day. Every flight-proven SpaceX launch completed even before Falcon 9 Block 5’s takeover likely provides as much as tens of millions of dollars for the company to either reinvest or recoup investments in reusability and Falcon Heavy, among other things.
-
- Blue Origin has had some success with its New Shepard suborbital rocket reuse program, although dramatically different from New Glenn. (NASA)
-
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- BE-4, an extraordinarily powerful 500k lb thrust methane/oxygen rocket engine, is roughly midway through a ground testing program, likely to reach completion in 2019. (Blue Origin)
-
- Blue is in the process of constructing an entirely new launch site for New Glenn at Kennedy Space Center, known as LC-36. (Blue Origin)
As of today, Blue Origin is quite simply the only rocket company with demonstrated successes, resources, and commitment to serious operationally-reusable rockets – while Blue has yet to reach orbit, commercial launch stalwarts ULA, Arianespace, and ILS have functionally buried their heads in the sand and either have no plans at all or plan flying even their tepid, disinterested steps into reusable rocket hardware by the mid-2020s at the absolute earliest. SpaceX, on the other hand, has already launched its first purpose-built reusable rocket – Falcon 9 Block 5 – and has two or three more completed boosters either at their launch sites or nearing shipment, with many more being prepared in their Hawthorne, CA factory. In fact, SpaceX’s final non-Block 5 mission is in less than four days (June 29), after which all future launches will be transferred to Block 5 rockets.
All future SpaceX missions will be conducted with highly reusable rocket boosters in the middle of 2018, whereas SpaceX’s current operational competitors are essentially not even trying to field competitive reusable rocket hardware on operational launches before 2024 or 2025. Blue Origin, on the other hand, still appears to be committed to completing the development of its huge, reusable New Glenn rocket, an orbital launch vehicle currently aiming for a debut launch sometime in late 2020. While still late to the start of the SpaceX-fueled reusable launch revolution, commercial launches with reusable hardware beginning as early as 2020-2021 bodes extremely well for Blue’s ability to actually carve out a sturdy segment of the market, while also giving SpaceX at least a decent hint of external motivation to remain competitive.
-
- China’s reusable rocket goals aim to fly small prototypes as early as 2020, with the ultimate goal of making all Chinese rockets reusable by 2035. (Sina Weibo & Spaceflightfans)
-
- The scale of BE-4 is demonstrated well in this Kent, WA factory photo. (Blue Origin)
-
- SpaceX’s first successfully launched and landed Block 5 Falcon 9, May 2018. (Tom Cross)
Aside from Blue Origin and a respectable effort from China, also aiming for initial reusable launch vehicle testing in 2020 (albeit beginning with a conservative – but still orbital – subscale prototype), all other commercial launch competitors are effectively betting their livelihoods on the failures non-traditional launch providers like SpaceX, betting that reusable rockets fail to appreciably lower costs to customers over the better part of the next decade. SpaceX, meanwhile, will begin putting those bets to the test in as few as three weeks.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
