News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon preps for debut as race to return astronauts to US craft nears final stages
After spending two weeks testing in a specialized NASA-run facility, SpaceX’s first flightworthy Crew Dragon spacecraft was shipped from Ohio to Florida, where it will now spend a number of months preparing for its first (uncrewed) launch into Earth orbit.
Known as Demonstration Mission 1 (DM-1), this critical milestone must be passed before the capsule will be certified to carry NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) sometime in 2019. While DM-1 will not sport a human crew, the spacecraft is nevertheless expected to demonstrate all life and mission-critical components, ranging from Crew Dragon’s complex array of avionics and ground/orbital communications equipment to craft’s ability to safely return passengers to Earth with a soft ocean landing.
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft has been in the serious hardware development phase for approximately five years, although the concept itself dates back about as early as its Cargo Dragon predecessor – 2005 to 2006, publicly. Over the course of roughly two weeks of testing at NASA’s Plum Brook Station, Crew Dragon was likely subjected to a suite of environmental conditions the spacecraft will need to routinely survive to make it through initial launch and successfully operate under the rigors of microgravity and thermal vacuum conditions.
Crew Dragon arrived in Florida this week ahead of its first flight after completing thermal vacuum and acoustic testing at @NASA’s Plum Brook Station in Ohio. https://t.co/xXJE8TjcTr pic.twitter.com/lr0P95zzIK
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) July 12, 2018
Given the DM-1 capsule and trunk’s fairly quick jaunt at the huge Plum Brook vacuum chamber and equally quick arrival in Florida, those test results were likely quite favorable. Still, a major amount of work lies ahead before the first full Crew Dragon is ready for its launch atop Falcon 9. Most significantly, the craft’s trunk did not follow its fellow capsule to Florida, but rather returned to SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory to be outfitted with critical flight hardware, particularly radiators and solar arrays. Once that outfit is complete, the module will also be shipped to Florida before being integrated with the DM-1 Crew Dragon capsule.
Of note, the DM-1 capsule has been constructed from the start to support a plan to use the vehicle in an in-flight abort test meant to ensure that the craft can wrest its passengers from harm’s way even at the most intense point of launch, where aerodynamic pressures are at their peak. In order to properly support both the DM-1 orbital mission and the in-flight abort test to follow, the capsule has been outfitted with a fair amount (hundreds of pounds) of hardware that will be unique to the pathfinder spacecraft. This understandably adds its own complexity to the already intense program’s first orbital mission, although it will hopefully not translate into additional delays.
-
- NASA Astronaut Suni Williams, fully suited in SpaceX’s spacesuit, interfaces with the display inside a mock-up of the Crew Dragon spacecraft in Hawthorne, California, during a testing exercise on April 3. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s Demo Mission-1 Crew Dragon seen preparing for vacuum tests at a NASA-run facility, June 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- Crew Dragon parachute tests are likely to continue into the summer to ensure NASA certification in time for DM-1. (SpaceX)
SpaceX competitor’s crewed spacecraft and rocket take shape
It’s worth noting that SpaceX is effectively operating at a distinct – albeit partially self-wrought – financial handicap when compared with Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft program, one of two vehicles funded by NASA to accomplish the same task of safely and reliably transporting astronauts to and from the ISS.
“NASA awarded firm-fixed-price contracts in 2014 to Boeing and Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) [of] up to $4.2 billion [for Boeing] and $2.6 billion [for SpaceX] for the development of crew transportation systems.” (GAO-18-476)
-
- Boeing’s DM-2 Starliner undergoes integration in Florida earlier this year. (Boeing)
-
- The ULA Atlas V rocket that will launch Boeing’s DM-1 Starliner spacecraft captured at ULA’s Decatur, AL factory, October 2017. (ULA)
-
- The United Launch Alliance (ULA) dual engine Centaur upper stage of the Atlas V rocket in the final stages of production and checkout, May 2018. (ULA)
In other words, Boeing requested and received a full 60% more than SpaceX to – quite literally – accomplish an identical task. Alongside the storied and brutally expensive history of crewed American spaceflight, both contracts are an absolute steal for two modernized, crew-capable spacecraft, but a 60% premium is a 60% premium. Foreseeable but slight cost overruns caused, among other things, by additional contractual requirements from NASA have followed a similar trend, roughly proportional to each company’s slice of the original $6.8b Commercial Crew contract.
“As of April 2018, NASA requirement changes had increased the value of contract line item 001 for Boeing by approximately $191 million and for SpaceX by approximately $91 million.” (GAO-18-476)
Still, Boeing’s progress towards its own DM-1 and DM-2 demo flights and a pad-abort test are impressive, although it very likely is more of a demonstration of a different approach to public communications than of any actual step up on SpaceX. In the last few weeks, Boeing has released a number of photos showing off the progress made building its own Starliner capsules and service modules (trunks), three of which are currently in varied states of assembly and integration in the company’s Florida-based facility. Additionally, United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno has shared off-and-on updates and photos of the launch contractor’s own progress assembling the rockets that will launch Boeing’s spacecraft.
The two engine Centaur is getting ready and excited for #StarLiner. pic.twitter.com/WIf3H8k9yq
— Tory Bruno (@torybruno) July 2, 2018
Regardless, a huge amount of work lies ahead before both Boeing and SpaceX’s crewed spacecraft are able to conduct their first uncrewed and crewed launches into orbit. Now very outdated, NASA has stated several times recently that the presently available targets of NET August 31 will likely be updated later this month, pushing DM-1 debuts into NET Q4 2018 and the first commercial crewed demo missions to 2019.
Stay tuned, as the Block 5 Falcon 9 tasked with launching SpaceX’s own DM-1 Crew Dragon will likely be the next of a recent flood of finished rockets to leave the company’s Hawthorne factory, where it will head to McGregor, Texas to complete acceptance wet dress rehearsals and static fire tests before shipping to SpaceX’s Pad 39A in Florida.
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
