News
SpaceX completes two Falcon 9 launch-and-recovers in less than 48 hours
SpaceX has successfully launched its second Falcon 9 mission in less than 48 hours, lifting 10 Iridium NEXT satellites into Low Earth Orbit and recovering the first stage in the Pacific Ocean in spite of sub-optimal weather conditions.
This launch saw the debut of improved titanium grid fins on the first stage of Falcon 9, providing the vehicle with better control authority and greater ease of reuse. One distinct benefit of these new grid fins is that they no longer require an ablative coating of heat-resistant paint like their aluminum predecessors. In the past, this paint would vaporize in the heat of reentry and cover the camera housing on the first stage, interrupting SpaceX’s live coverage of the landing attempt. This launch demonstrated nearly perfect coverage of that landing, with the titanium fins requiring no paint. Musk also tweeted just after launch that the improved fins worked even better than expected and should offer almost effectively unlimited reuse without refurbishment.
New titanium grid fins worked even better than expected. Should be capable of an indefinite number of flights with no service.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 25, 2017
Falcon 9 S1 is now safely aboard Just Read The Instructions and will be brought into port over the next several days, just after the first stage recovered on the East Coast returns to Port Canaveral. This leaves SpaceX in the wonderful position of having two drone ships and their accompanying freshly-recovered first stages sailing back to port at the same time, a truly thrilling accomplishment.
It is worth noting that the first successful recovery of Falcon 9 occurred barely more than 18 months ago, and the first sea-based recovery just over 14 months ago. In that period, SpaceX has effectively made recovery a routine (albeit difficult) process, and has also begun to make the partial reuse of Falcon 9 routine following the second reuse of a first stage during the launch of BulgariaSat-1 just 48 hours ago. In tweets following the launch today, Musk revealed that there was an attempt to recover one or both of the payload fairings, but that the automated parachute system had issues. This likely implies that the attempt was not successful, but Musk believes it will be figured out and made routine by the end of this year. He reiterated that SpaceX’s ultimate goal is to launch, recover, and reuse a first stage in approximately 24 hours, sans any repainting that has occurred in the last two reuses.
-
- The titanium grid fins, however, barely look phased by the reentry heating. (SpaceX)
-
- Just Read The Instructions’ second successful recovery ever. (SpaceX)
While the mission is not complete until all 10 satellites have been deployed approximately two and a half hours from now, it has been a resounding success so far, with the second stage just now finishing its second short burn to place the satellites in a precise orbit. Aside from Vandenberg’s usual cover of dense fog obscuring the view of the many fans and employees who journeyed to view the launch live, the last several steps of the mission will almost certainly proceed without issue.
SpaceX’s next launch has been delayed slightly following BulgariaSat-1’s several day delay, but it is currently tentatively scheduled for the 4th of July as of this moment. Watch for additional coverage of first stage recovery and SpaceX launches soon to come here at Teslarati.
Another resounding success for the books. (SpaceX)
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
