News
SpaceX Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test gets its first firm launch date
The day after questions arose around the targeted launch date of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test (IFA), SpaceX and NASA have officially set the date for the spacecraft’s next major flight test.
On Friday, December 6th, a NASA Commercial Crew Program blog post confirmed a NET date of Saturday, January 4th, 2020 for the IFA test. The IFA test is one of the most notable final steps to be completed by the Crew Dragon capsule prior to supporting crewed astronaut flight to the International Space Station in 2020 as a part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Following an apparent incorrect statement made during SpaceX’s CRS-19 webcast that identified a February 2020 target date of the IFA test, SpaceX provided re-assurance that teams were very much still working toward a NET December launch date.
A January 4th date falls just short of SpaceX’s December goal but it still comes as little surprise. In addition to this week’s CRS-19 launch, SpaceX aims to support two more launches prior to year’s end – an internal mission to launch 60 more Starlink satellites and the launch of the JCSAT 18/Kacific 1 communications satellite for customers SKY Perfect JSAT Corp. of Japan and Kacific Broadband Satellites of Singapore. While completing four Falcon 9 launches and landings in a period of less than four weeks is certainly possible for SpaceX, it was rather ambitious, especially given that Crew Dragon’s abort test is almost certainly the company’s preeminent priority.
The targeted January launch date now encroaches into the first quarter of 2020, which SpaceX has adamantly stated is also the goal for Crew Dragon’s first NASA astronaut launch, known as Demo-2. With the IFA test now NET January 4th, it will be a major challenge for NASA and SpaceX to turn around and prepare Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 for Demo-2 just 4-12 weeks later. Of note, Boeing is preparing its own Starliner spacecraft for an uncrewed launch test NET December 20th and has also claimed that it wants to launch a crewed flight test (CFT, akin to SpaceX Demo-2) as early as February 2020, same as SpaceX.
It’s extremely unlikely that NASA will be able to preserve both of those schedules given the Commercial Crew Program’s fixed workforce and the vast quantity of paperwork it must complete before the agency can give the go-ahead for SpaceX and Boeing astronaut launches.
Unsurprisingly, the blog post confirmed that the IFA test would launch from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A). Pad 39A is the same facility that previously supported Crew Dragon’s March 2019 Demo-1 launch debut and is the only pad SpaceX intends to launch Crew Dragon from.
Interestingly, Pad 39A is also an active construction site – SpaceX is in the midst of building a new launch mount and modifying existing facilities to support future launches of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship vehicle. Construction has been underway for a few months and is situated directly beside Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy’s exiting launch mount.
Although that construction will not be allowed to interfere with Crew Dragon launch activity, including the IFA test, construction on the Starship mount will likely be impacted. Construction crews will undoubtedly be expected to evacuate the area surrounding the launchpad during any Falcon 9 static fire test or launch, likely translating to a few days to a few weeks of downtime depending on how SpaceX handles the scheduling.
As 2019 comes to a close, SpaceX remains determined to launch Crew Dragon’s IFA test as quickly as is safely possible. If all goes perfectly during the upcoming abort test, SpaceX says it is seriously targeting Crew Dragon’s biggest test yet – its inaugural astronaut launch – less than two months later in February 2020. It should go without saying that that schedule is incredibly ambitious and highly liable to slip in March or Q2, but if the ambition is there, SpaceX believes it is technically possible.
For now, we have less than a month to wait for Crew Dragon’s next launch milestone and perhaps just 2-3 weeks before the spacecraft and its Falcon 9 rocket roll out to Pad 39A to prepare for a routine static fire test.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
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
