News
SpaceX, NASA schedule back-to-back astronaut recovery and launch after delays
Poor winter weather on Florida’s East Coast and across the Atlantic Ocean has forced NASA and SpaceX to flip the nominal sequence of events for the imminent back-to-back launch and recovery of two Crew Dragons.
Contrary to preference, SpaceX and NASA’s four Crew-2 astronauts are now scheduled to undock from the International Space Station (ISS) and return to Earth before their replacements (Crew-3) launch to the station. As a result, there will be no on-orbit handoff, meaning that only one NASA astronaut – Mark Vande Hei – will be left alongside cosmonauts Anton Shkaplerov and Pyotr Dubrov to crew and operate the US segment of the ISS until Crew-3’s arrival.
After several delays from an initial October 30th target, Crew-3 astronauts Raja Chari, Thomas Marshburn, Matthias Maurer, and Kayla Barron are scheduled to ride Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon to orbit no earlier than (NET) 9:03pm EST, Wednesday, November 10th (02:03 UTC 13 Nov) – two days after Crew-2 is expected to splash down.
Save for a one-day delay from October 30th to October 31st needed to give SpaceX and NASA time to qualify a fixed plumbing leak for crewed spaceflight, all subsequent delays into November have been caused by poor weather – a rather common late fall and winter occurrence in the Atlantic Ocean and southern US. The weather isn’t entirely to blame, though. Crew Dragon, SpaceX, and NASA are also partly responsible due to the extremely strict and narrow range of weather conditions the spacecraft has been certified to operate in.
Worse, a large portion of Dragon’s weather constraints are for hypothetical abort scenarios rather than the nominal launch – not “is it safe to launch?” but “is it safe to launch if something fails catastrophically and Dragon aborts and has to splash down anywhere in a several-dozen-mile corridor stretching the entire length of the Atlantic?” In the case of Crew-3’s launch, the main condition making that vast abort zone a no-go for launch is surface winds.
While aborting an expensive, time-sensitive rocket launch due to ground winds might bring to mind some kind of storm with vast swells and torrential rain, the reality is that NASA has only rated Crew Dragon to splash down when surface winds are less than 8-11 mph (13-18 km/h). In other words, the conditions causing 10+ days of delays and leading NASA to leave a skeleton crew at the space station’s US segment amounts to a firm breeze. There are likely many reasons (most hopefully good) for that highly conservative limit but ultimately, it means that NASA’s Crew Dragon missions will almost always be at risk of weather delays both going up and coming down.
As if to emphasize that fact, winds in the Gulf of Mexico, on the opposite side of Florida, also caused NASA to delay SpaceX’s Crew-2 departure and splashdown from November 6th/7th to November 8th, raising the risk of more Crew-3 delays or another complex schedule conflict if conditions force another change. A minor issue with Dragon’s toilet discovered during Inspiration4 and fixed on Crew-3’s ride to space will preclude its use during Crew-2’s 11-hour trip home, but that change should be barely noticeable to professional astronauts that are required to wear diapers as a precaution regardless. Otherwise, throughout the delays, Falcon 9 B1067, Crew-3 Dragon C210, and Crew-2 Dragon C206 have all thankfully remained healthy and ready to go.
Crew-2 is scheduled to undock from the ISS around 2pm EST (17:00 UTC) on November 8th and could splash down as early as 10:33 pm (03:33 UTC) – less than nine hours later.
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
