News
SpaceX director says six Crew Dragon launches per year is a sustainable goal
A senior manager says that SpaceX could sustainably launch six or more Crew Dragons per year if the market for private missions grows large enough to demand it.
Benji Reed, Senior Director of Human Spaceflight Programs, offered his thoughts on the matter in a press conference following SpaceX’s successfully recovery of Crew Dragon and four private Axiom-1 astronauts from the Gulf of Mexico, marking the end of the first all-private mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Asked what kind of launch cadence SpaceX believes it could handle going forward, Reed stated that he “would love to see…half a dozen crew flights…or more” per year and believes that “SpaceX can sustain that [pace] if there’s a market for it.”
The question is an important one after a SpaceX executive confirmed to Reuters earlier this year that the company has already ended production of Crew Dragon after building just a handful of reusable capsules. With that fleet of four spacecraft, it hasn’t been clear how many crewed missions SpaceX can – or thinks it can – launch each year. To some extent, it’s long been expected that SpaceX would try to replace both Falcon rockets and Dragon spacecraft with Starship as soon as the next-generation fully-reusable rocket is ready.
However, without major redesigns or a new and heavily modified variant of the rocket’s upper stage, it’s difficult to imagine NASA transitioning its International Space Station astronaut launches from Dragon to Starship anytime soon. Even though Starship could feasibly revolutionize spaceflight and NASA has already contracted with SpaceX to build a version of the rocket to land NASA astronauts on the Moon, the one thing it’s hard to imagine the space agency ever compromising on is safety. Crew Dragon has a built-in launch escape system that allows the capsule to almost instantly whisk astronauts away from a failing rocket at any point before or during a launch.
Starship has no such escape system and SpaceX has no apparent plans to develop a variant of the crew-carrying ship with a comparable abort system. Because the Starship rocket’s second stage is the orbital spacecraft, crew cabin, and reentry vehicle, it simply isn’t possible for the current design of the next-generation vehicle to match the theoretical safety of Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon. CEO Elon Musk has discussed increasing the number of engines on Starship to allow it to escape from a failing booster but that would leave astronauts with no way to escape from the upper stage itself.
On top of Dragon’s fundamentally superior safety capabilities, Falcon 9 also has an extraordinary record of 125 consecutively successful launches. If NASA wouldn’t let Dragon launch its astronauts on Falcon 9 without an active escape system, it’s hard to imagine how many consecutive launch successes Starship would need before the agency would even think about retiring Crew Dragon.
This is all to say that SpaceX is likely going to be stuck operating Crew Dragon for the indefinite future as long as it’s too stubborn to develop a true launch escape system for Starship. Even though the recently announced Polaris Program aims to culminate in the “first flight of Starship with humans on board,” it’s likely that most private SpaceX crew launch customers will follow NASA’s lead.
Thankfully, even with four Crew Dragon capsules, it’s likely that SpaceX can manage significantly more than six crewed missions per year if the demand is there and commercial passengers – mirroring NASA – aren’t ready to risk flying on Starship. Already, SpaceX has successfully launched the same Crew Dragon capsule to orbit twice in 137 days. If SpaceX continues flying back-to-back NASA crew transport missions while Boeing’s Starliner inches through qualification, that will tie up two Dragons per year, limiting SpaceX to two launches for NASA and around four to five private astronaut launches per year.
Assuming Starliner finally reaches operational readiness and begins supporting every other NASA crew launch, SpaceX could feasibly launch one NASA mission and seven private missions (lasting up to two weeks each) per year by the end of 2023. Additionally, if SpaceX can improve Crew Dragon turnaround to 120 days, the fleet could support 10 crew launches per year. 90 days? 13 launches per year. Private missions to the ISS would add plenty of schedule constraints, reducing the total number of opportunities, but that’s a minor problem in comparison.
The only lingering technical concern, then, is the longevity of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule fleet. SpaceX and NASA have initially certified each capsule for five missions, but after Crew-4’s April 27th launch, the fleet has already eaten up 7 of the 20 flights that limit permits. Assuming no additional demand for private launches, the remaining 13 ‘certified’ flights might last SpaceX through 2024. Sooner than later, with NASA’s blessing, it will either need to significantly increase the number of missions each capsule is certified to fly, build new capsules, or find a way to transition to Starship.
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
