News
SpaceX and NASA reaffirm Crew Dragon’s January 2019 launch debut target
After what can only be described as an attempt to sandbag the official launch schedule, NASA administrator James Bridenstine remains alone in his public implication that the date for SpaceX’s first Crew Dragon test flight (DM-1) is so uncertain that “the first half of 2019” was the closest he would get to an estimate.
Such an uncertain estimate would normally be par for the course of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), but the fact remains that SpaceX and NASA have recently filed for and received specific launch date allotments for Crew Dragon’s DM-1 launch, dates little more than 4-6 weeks away from today.
At the NAC HEO meeting, Bill Gerstenmaier says the SpaceX Demo-1 mission is planned “towards the end of January.”
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) December 6, 2018
As such, the fact that NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier – a critical hands-on leader of NASA’s commercial and exploration programs – specifically stated that NASA and SpaceX are targeting DM-1’s launch in January is an unusually stark indication that the two senior NASA officials are not reading from the same script, so to speak. The reasons for the dramatic differences in official statements separated by just one week are hard to parse and would inevitably tread into waters of pure speculation and political machinations.
What is far more important is that Gerstenmaier – backed up by Phil McCalister, NASA Director of Commercial Spaceflight – reaffirmed that NASA is planning for the first orbital, uncrewed launch of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon as early as January 2019, albeit with a slight 10-day slip since the last specific launch date (January 7) was announced.
Speaking before and after Falcon 9’s recent launch of Cargo Dragon (CRS-16) on December 5th, SpaceX VP of Launch and Build Reliability Hans Koenigsmann added yet another voice to the chorus, stating that he and SpaceX were extremely confident that all the physical hardware and software aspects of Crew Dragon would be ready to launch no later than January 7th.
NASA’s Phil McAlister updates the status of SpaceX’s Demo-1 Crew Dragon spacecraft, and says the company aims to have all hardware ready by Dec. 20, then will stand down for the holidays before resuming launch preps in January. pic.twitter.com/XDubh95PEV
— Stephen Clark (@StephenClark1) December 6, 2018
Why so uncertain?
It’s impossible to fully delve into the complex political and bureaucratic intricacies of modern NASA, but the uncertainty within NASA and the deltas between NASA and SpaceX’s official statements can generally be explained by the simple fact that a number of critical final reviews have yet to be completed, reviews that will offer the final determination of when or if Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon are ready to launch.
Depending on the results of those readiness reviews, DM-1 could be given the go-ahead to launch in January or it could be delayed six months because NASA wants SpaceX to change a number of critical spacecraft systems, two extreme sides of what can be best described as a spectrum of possibilities.
In other words, SpaceX’s Koenigsmann and NASA’s Gerstenmaier and McCalister have since implied that they are confident that those final reviews will look favorably upon launch dates that approximate “ASAP”. Bridenstine, while technically the head of NASA, can thus be treated as a dissenting or outlier opinion in this case, presumably offering a worst-case-scenario of when SpaceX might be able to launch DM-1 if final reviews go very badly.
-
- SpaceX technicians move the integrated DM-1 Crew Dragon during a vacuum chamber test campaign. (SpaceX)
-
- A SpaceX employee works on the Crew Dragon assigned to DM-2, the first launch with astronauts aboard. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX installed its Crew Access Arm (CAA) in September 2018. (Tom Cross)
Bridenstine and Koenigsmann’s comments are worth looking at in a bit more depth, subtly but unequivocally pointing to the differences in opinion between NASA and SpaceX that clearly still float just beneath the public surface. Asked about Bridenstine’s suggestion that DM-1 could slip quite a bit, Koenigsmann offered a skeptical but levelheaded response:
“What I could see is a [slip of a] couple of days because of [Space Station] traffic. For example, CRS-16 (Cargo Dragon) is on station at the same time, lots of traffic, lots of crew time requirements, but our target is – at this point in time – mid-January, and we’re pushing as hard and [as diligently] as we can for this particular launch.”
In fact, it appears that NASA and SpaceX concluded, around the same point in time, that a new target of January 17th was preferable to account for the logistical scheduling concerns highlighted by Hans in the above quote, allowing 10 extra days for the International Space Station (ISS) crew to complete other spacecraft operations before Crew Dragon’s planned arrival.
Even more intriguingly, local reporter Ken Kremer followed up with a question specifical triggered by Bridenstine’s suggestion (according to USA Today) that “challenges” with Crew Dragon’s landing parachutes were a leading factor in the unlikelihood of a January launch. Hans responded in his usual deadpan style:
“No; we’re working through issues, obviously, I mean every launch has things that we work through to make sure they work fine. [Dragon 2’s parachutes] actually have more redundancy than those on Dragon 1 and they are also [structurally] reinforced on Demo-1, so pretty sure [they’re] gonna be successful.”
Now we wait.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
