News
SpaceX dropped a Crew Dragon mockup to save a helicopter and its passengers
SpaceX says it encountered an issue that forced it to drop a Crew Dragon spacecraft mockup during parachute testing — not a failure of the vehicle or its parachutes, to be clear, but still a problem nonetheless.
This is now the second significant hurdle SpaceX’s Crew Dragon astronaut spacecraft has faced in the last few days, following the revelation that NASA will not permit the company to launch astronauts until it completes an investigation into an in-flight rocket engine failure during its March 18th Starlink launch. There is likely no technical corollary for the new Falcon 9 rockets that will launch NASA astronauts, but existing Commercial Crew Program (CCP) contract rules still require SpaceX’s internal investigation be completed before it can proceed. With lives on the line, caution – within reason – is unequivocally preferable to the alternative.
Thankfully, SpaceX’s parachute test article anomaly should have a much smaller impact on Crew Dragon’s astronaut launch debut schedule, but it’s unlikely to have zero impact.
“During a planned parachute drop test [on Tuesday], the test article suspended underneath the helicopter became unstable. Out of an abundance of caution and to keep the helicopter crew safe, the pilot pulled the emergency release. As the helicopter was not yet at target conditions, the test article was not armed, and as such, the parachute system did not initiate the parachute deployment sequence. While the test article was lost, this was not a failure of the parachute system and most importantly no one was injured. NASA and SpaceX are working together to determine the testing plan going forward in advance of Crew Dragon’s second demonstration mission.”
SpaceX — March 24th, 2020
On March 24th, SpaceX says it was preparing for one of the last system-level Crew Dragon parachute tests planned before the spacecraft can be declared ready for human spaceflight. These final tests are reportedly focused on corner cases, referring to unusual but not impossible scenarios the spacecraft might encounter during operational astronaut landing attempts. Those likely include parachute deployment scenarios that are far more stressful than a nominal reentry, descent, and landing would allow.
Regardless, things did not go as planned during Tuesday’s test attempt. SpaceX primarily uses cargo planes, helicopters, and large balloons to carry its Crew Dragon test articles (not actual functional spacecraft) to the altitudes and speeds needed to achieve certain test conditions. On March 24th, SpaceX was using a helicopter – either a civilian Blackhawk or a much larger Skycrane.
For unknown reasons, the helicopter carrying the Crew Dragon test article on March 24th began to experience “instability”, likely referring to some sort of resonance (wobble, sway, oscillation, etc). Out of an abundance of caution, the pilot – likely highly trained – decided the instability was becoming an unacceptable risk and chose to drop the cargo load (a Crew Dragon mockup). Unsurprisingly, the parachute test article was not ready to drop and plummeted to the Earth without any kind of parachute deployment, likely pancaking on the desert floor shortly thereafter.
Again, it needs to be noted – as SpaceX did above – that the loss of the Crew Dragon parachute test article was entirely unrelated to the performance of the spacecraft or the parachutes it was testing. The mockup destroyed in the incident is essentially just a boilerplate mass simulator shaped like a Crew Dragon capsule to achieve more aerodynamically accurate test results. As such, it’s far simpler and cheaper than an actual Dragon spacecraft and shouldn’t take long at all to replace if SpaceX doesn’t already have a second similar mockup ready to go.
Thankfully, that means that the loss of the test article should have next to no serious impact on Crew Dragon’s inaugural astronaut launch schedule. Planned no earlier than (NET) mid-to-late May according to NASA’s latest official statement, SpaceX and the space agency still have at least a month and a half to work through a final parachute test campaign, complete an investigation into Starlink L6’s Falcon booster engine failure, and finish several trees worth of paperwork and reviews. Delays remain likely but they shouldn’t be more than a few weeks, barring any future surprises.
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
