News
SpaceX competitor Blue Origin targets first Moon landing for 2023
Prospective SpaceX competitor and reusable rocket developer Blue Origin detailed its plans earlier this month to enable significant human presence on the Moon and announced a tentative schedule that could see the company begin experimental lunar landing tests of a multi-ton spacecraft just a few years from today – NET 2023.
Funded entirely with stock sales courtesy of founder Jeff Bezos’ lucrative position at the helm of Amazon (not to mention his status as the wealthiest human alive), Blue Origin receives roughly $1 billion annually to develop its space tourism-oriented New Shepard rocket and capsule (suborbital), the magnitudes-larger orbital New Glenn launch vehicle, and a number of other longer-term projects like human colonies in Earth orbit (including the Moon).
In answer to my question, @ac_charania said would evolve to reusable Blue Moon lander. Also under consideration is reusable New Glenn upper stage & faring. https://t.co/Dg3UTN9HU5
— Charles A. Lurio (@TheLurioReport) July 4, 2018
Think SpaceX in terms of ambition (and, perhaps, quality of workforce) but with essentially no existential motivation to field products quickly – framed a bit less flatteringly, Blue Origin moves very slowly when compared with SpaceX. The company was born a full two years before SpaceX and has been working on reusable rockets for at least as long, yet has less than ten launches of a genuinely reusable rocket to claim its own. That rocket, New Shepard, is a purely suborbital, single-stage vehicle intended to enable zero-gee tourism, and is downright minuscule when examined alongside Falcon 9 and Heavy.
-
- Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine, the propulsion for New Glenn, seen conducting hot-fire tests in Texas. The engine’s nozzles is a full 6 feet (~1.8m) in diameter. (Blue Origin)
-
- New Shepard ahead of Blue Origin’s most recent suborbital launch, the eighth completed so far. April 2018. (Blue Origin)
New Glenn, however, would truly catapult Blue Origin into a competitive position in the orbital launch business, placing them alongside companies like SpaceX, ULA, and Arianespace. Further, Blue appears to believe that it can design and produce New Glenn boosters capable of as many as 25 flights from the get-go, versus the three years SpaceX spent iteratively design and upgrading its Falcon 9 before arriving at a booster potentially capable of 10-100 reuses. New Glenn’s inaugural launch is currently scheduled for late 2020, and the impressive BE-4 methalox rocket engine powering its first stage is well into serious hot-fire testing, while the engine that will power New Glenn’s upper stage is already successfully flying (albeit as a sea-level variant) on New Shepard.
In a glance, Blue Origin undoubtedly has a lot going for it, although its confidence quite plainly outstrips its the achievements it can actually lay claim to at present. Nevertheless, the company’s Blue Moon project is clearly serious and will build heavily on the (hoped for) successes of New Shepard and New Glenn, integrating the hands-on experience and technologies developed over the course of building and launching both rockets. Presumably depending on New Glenn as the launch vehicle, Blue Origin stated on July 3 that its lunar lander – designed to deliver multiple tons of cargo to the Moon’s surface – could begin experimental Moon missions by 2023 and potentially even sooner if work proceeds exceptionally smoothly.
-
- Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- SpaceX’s BFR. (Gravitation Innovation/David Romax)
-
- Credit: NASA-MSFC
-
- Arianespace’s next-generation Ariane 6. (Arianespace)
-
- ULA’s upcoming Vulcan rocket. (ULA)
Whether or not Blue Origin manages to make that extraordinarily aggressive scheduled and jumps from suborbital missions to giant orbital reusable rocket launches to multi-ton Moon landings in barely five years, the 2020s are lining up to be an extraordinarily exciting time for spaceflight. With any luck, a veritable fleet of next-generation rockets from Blue Origin, SpaceX, Arianespace, ULA, NASA, Japan, and five or more smaller commercial companies will complete their first launches over the next three years.
Meanwhile, heavyweights SpaceX and Blue Origin may find themselves in a whole different arena, racing to land payloads on the Moon (or perhaps on the Moon and Mars).
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
