News
SpaceX’s historic Crew Dragon spacecraft returned to dry land for reuse
Five days after becoming the first private spacecraft to successfully launch and land astronauts, as well as the first crewed spacecraft to land in the Gulf of Mexico, SpaceX safely returned historic Demo-2 Crew Dragon to dry land.
After a brief night in a Floridan port on the Gulf of Mexico, SpaceX recovery vessel GO Navigator pushed off, ultimately completing a several-day journey around the entirety of Florida before arriving at Port Canaveral on August 7th. One final lift onto dry land marked the true end of Crew Dragon capsule C206’s Demo-2 NASA astronaut launch debut, although astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley were technically extracted from the spacecraft and airlifted to NASA’s Houston facilities on August 2nd.
While, prior to Demo-2’s May 30th launch, it appeared that post-astronaut extraction recovery operations would not be of significant interest to NASA, things changed dramatically just a few days later. On June 3rd, a modification to SpaceX’s Commercial Crew contract with NASA revealed that the space agency had unexpectedly given the company permission to reuse Falcon 9 boosters – and Crew Dragon capsules, too – on astronaut launches planned as few as eight months in the future.
Given just how unexpected NASA’s (quasi) announcement was, many assumed that a clause that SpaceX could begin reusing Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon on Crew-2 (the second operational astronaut launch) meant that NASA would maybe consider the feat in 2021 or 2022. Instead, revealed in detail by both NASA and SpaceX officials over the course of several media events before, during, and after Crew Dragon’s first crewed reentry and splashdown, it quickly became clear that the plan was to reuse the Demo-2 Crew Dragon on Crew-2.
Scheduled as early as February 2021, Crew-2 is shorthand for SpaceX’s second operational astronaut launch to the International Space Station (ISS) and will follow directly in the footsteps of Crew-1, itself scheduled no earlier than (NET) late September. Given that NASA had apparently agreed to reuse the Demo-2 Crew Dragon before it had even returned to Earth (and thus before any inspections could be done), the space agency’s confidence in SpaceX must be at an all-time high.
Knowing NASA, though, that confidence is likely almost entirely based on fact and observations made over a decade of cooperation with SpaceX. With Crew Dragon capsule C206 safely in hand and back on dry land, SpaceX – alongside NASA – can begin an extensive inspection of the historic spacecraft. Building off of experience gained from Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 (C201) and In-Flight Abort (C205) test flights and recoveries, if capsule C206 look as good as SpaceX and NASA seem to think it will be, the inspection process could be a surprisingly short one.
Once NASA officially qualifies Crew Dragon for operational astronaut launches, SpaceX teams will likely begin reassembling capsule C206 as soon as possible, completing any necessary repairs, replacements, or refurbishment along the way. If capsule C201’s processing is anything to go by, SpaceX may choose to perform some major integrated tests – possibly including a Super Draco abort thruster static fire – before giving the spacecraft the go-ahead to become the first reused crew capsule.
According to SpaceX engineer Kate Tice, the Crew Dragon refurbishment process will be quick relative to Cargo Dragon thanks to major design improvements, requiring six months or less between orbital flights. That means that future reuses should leave SpaceX and NASA plenty of schedule margin and Crew Dragon capsule C206 could potentially be ready to launch Crew-2 as early as late 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
