News
SpaceX to upgrade Dragon with the most immersive window ever launched into space
SpaceX and Inspiration4 customer Jared Isaacman have revealed a substantial and unexpected design change made to the Crew Dragon spacecraft that will carry the billionaire and three guests into orbit later this year.
Reminiscent of the beloved “Cupola” (Italian for dome) built by the European Space Agency (ESA) and installed on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2010, SpaceX says it has designed a spectacular ‘glass dome’ window add-on for Crew Dragon. Thanks to some level of newfound commercial interest in free-flying Crew Dragon missions, in which the spacecraft would operate as its own miniature space station for several days, SpaceX concluded that it could fully remove the spacecraft’s docking adapter.
In its place, SpaceX has apparently designed a huge, monolithic, dome-like window that promises to offer a viewing experience likely unmatched in the history of spaceflight.
While the ISS Cupola is reminiscent of Crew Dragon’s glass dome, the two windows are only similar in the sense that they’re both space-based viewing windows. Beyond that, the Dragon Dome is more akin to the ultimate realization of the platonic ideal that ESA engineers tried to achieve with the Cupola. Featuring an approximate 2:1 ratio of framework and structural support material to glass, the Cupola’s central circular window has an uninterrupted diameter of 80 cm (2.6 ft), while the whole assembly has a total internal diameter of ~2m (6.6 ft) and a depth (the ‘height’ of the conical windowed area) of about 50 cm (1.6 ft).
Assuming SpaceX is explicitly designing the dome to integrate with Crew Dragon’s existing International Docking Adapter (IDA) support structure, it could have a diameter as large as 1.4m (~4.5 ft) and a depth of 60 cm (~2 ft; assuming a perfect hemisphere for maximum strength). If SpaceX’s official render is correct, the dome will also be monolithic, meaning that the glass window itself would be completely uninterrupted by structural supports.
Much like the Cupola, which has foldable ‘petals’ that serve as shades and micrometeorite shields when the module isn’t in use, Crew Dragon’s glass dome would be safely enclosed inside the spacecraft’s nosecone. It’s unclear what material the dome would be made out of, given that large, monolithic, bulletproof domes are a technology that effectively does not exist. At least one company, Surmet, specializes in manufacturing aluminum oxynitride (“transparent aluminum”) windows, including small domes for things like missile sensor pods.
However, the maximum size of those commercial ALON domes is roughly half a foot in diameter and there is no evidence that anyone has attempted the produce an ALON dome even a full magnitude smaller than what SpaceX’s Dragon window would require. This is to say that if SpaceX has found a way to produce massive monolithic windows and domes rated for space travel, it will effectively leap from a total outsider to a de facto leader of the niche bulletproof glass dome industry. It’s worth noting that CEO Elon Musk has stated that Tesla’s Cybertruck will feature “transparent metal” windows, which would likely make the EV company the world leader in ALON window mass-production – expertise that SpaceX could borrow from given their history of joint materials R&D.
In a live March 30th event celebrating the final crew selection, SpaceX director Benji Reed stated that NASA has been closely involved with with development of Dragon’s dome window. Most notably, he strongly implied that flight-proven Crew Dragons would be able to swap between dome and docking hardware with enough ease that a Dragon flown with a dome on a SpaceX tourist mission could still be modified to support NASA astronaut launches, thus ensuring commonality within the Dragon ‘fleet’ SpaceX is building.
SpaceX has implied that its Dragon Dome will debut as early as September 2021 on billionaire Jared Isaacman’s Inspiration4 mission – currently on track to become the world’s first fully private astronaut launch.
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
