Connect with us

News

SpaceX Dragon carries four astronauts home after record-breaking voyage

Crew Dragon and four astronauts are lifted aboard a SpaceX recovery ship just half an hour after splashdown. (NASA)

Published

on

SpaceX’s first operational Crew Dragon spacecraft has safely returned its four-astronaut crew back to Earth after a record-breaking voyage in space.

Around eight hours after JAXA astronaut Soichi Noguchi and NASA astronauts Shannon Walker, Victor Glover, and Mike Hopkins undocked from the International Space Station (ISS) and began their descent, Crew Dragon ‘Resilience’ (capsule C207) gently splashed down in the Gulf of Mexico a few dozen miles off the coast of western Florida. Marking the second crewed splashdown of the first crewed US space capsule developed and flown since the end of the Apollo Program almost half a century ago, SpaceX’s successful Crew-1 recovery is extraordinarily significant.

First and foremost, Crew-1’s recovery marks the first time in US history that a crewed spacecraft has successfully returned orbiting astronauts to Earth after spending more than a few months (84 days) in orbit. In fact, Crew Dragon C207 ultimately doubled that Apollo era record, spending a full 168 days (almost six months) in the vacuum of space. Only Russia has extensive experience operating crewed spacecraft in space for half a year or more, meaning that NASA and SpaceX were venturing into the (relative) unknown with their first attempt at a similar feat.

Had something gone awry during Crew-1’s ISS departure or reentry, descent, and splashdown, SpaceX and NASA could have been forced to grapple with the fact that Crew-2’s Crew Dragon might not longer be considered safe enough to return its own four-astronaut crew back to Earth five months from now. Of course, the duo assuredly didn’t make the decision to fly Crew-2 before Crew-1’s recovery lightly and there was clearly a significant degree of confidence that an extra ~100 days in orbit would be a marginal risk – but a risk it still certainly was.

Advertisement

Thankfully, Crew-1’s ISS departure and splashdown was truly flawless, effectively retiring what little risk remained and confirming beyond a shadow of a doubt that SpaceX’s first crewed spacecraft is safe for human spaceflight.

Crew-1 astronauts Shannon Walker, Victor Glover, Mike Hopkins, and Soichi Noguchi are pictured inside Dragon shortly before hatch close and undocking. (Thomas Pesquet)
Back on the ISS, ESA astronaut Thomas Pesquet was able to capture some truly spectacular photos of Crew Dragon’s plasma trail as it tore through the atmosphere during reentry. (Thomas Pesquet)
Half a day later, the four astronauts (and Crew Dragon) were safely back on Earth. (NASA)

Notably, in another demonstration of NASA’s increasingly extraordinary trust in SpaceX, Crew-1’s recovery was the first time a crewed spacecraft has landed in the ocean at night since Apollo 8 splashed down in 1968. While obviously far from preferable compared to a normal daylight recovery, sea and weather conditions were apparently too good to pass up and SpaceX’s recovery teams have already extensively trained for nighttime splashdowns.

Just a few weeks prior, the exact same Crew Dragon became the first US spacecraft ever to switch docking ports while in orbit – a feat it completed without issue. In other words, Crew Dragon Resilience (C207) is the first crewed space capsule to fly four people, splash down at night, and switch docking ports in orbit, as well as the first US crewed spacecraft to spend more than three months in space and first privately-developed spacecraft to complete an operational astronaut transport mission.

Wrangling a Dragon – at night. (NASA)

Now that Crew-1 has vacated its ISS docking port, SpaceX’s second upgraded Cargo Dragon spacecraft is clear to launch and dock with the ISS as early as June 3rd. In late October, SpaceX is scheduled to perform an almost identical Dragon ‘hand-off,’ launching Crew-3 and four more international astronauts to briefly join Crew-2’s Dragon at the ISS before the latter vehicle heads back to Earth with its own crew of four.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

SpaceX comes with a slew of changes for Starship Flight 13

 

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.

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

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.

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.

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

on

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

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.

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.

Continue Reading