News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon gets tentative NASA target for first astronaut launch
New information from both NASA and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirm that SpaceX is currently targeting – at least very tentatively so – Crew Dragon’s first launch with astronauts aboard no earlier than November 15th, 2019.
SpaceX is currently in the midst of a complex, high-stakes anomaly investigation after its flight-proven DM-1 Crew Dragon capsule suffered a catastrophic failure on April 20th. That investigation is nowhere near full closure due to the fact that the interests of NASA and the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) are equally interwoven into the work involved. Given the potential consequences of a similar failure occurring with astronauts (public or private) aboard, NASA is unlikely to accept anything less than a no-stone-left-unturned analysis and failure resolution, including any necessary design changes to Crew Dragon, no matter how far-reaching.
As NASASpaceflight.com’s Chris Gerbhardt notes, the Crew Dragon-related dates included in the NASA Flight Planning Integration Panel (FPIP) document are extremely tentative. They’re really only there to serve as placeholders for longer-term International Space Station planning, already a necessarily uncertain endeavor. Nevertheless, NASA’s NET November 15th 2019 planning date for Crew Dragon DM-2 (the first crewed test flight) was likely okayed by SpaceX – if not provided outright by the company – before going into an official FPIP.
In other words, November 15th is probably a real target but should be treated as an absolutely-positively-no-earlier-than launch date for Crew Dragon’s first astronaut-laden mission to the ISS. Back in late March (after DM-1’s successfully completion but before the capsule’s ground failure), anonymous Russian space industry sources confirmed that NASA’s DM-2 planning date was July 25th, while also indicating that the space agency was already preparing for delays that could push DM-2 as late as November 2019.
Specifically, an anonymous Roscosmos source told Russian outlet TASS that “the [DM-2] launch of Crew Dragon is likely to be postponed to November”. Given that that delay was rumored – albeit quasi-officially – and reported on nearly a month before Crew Dragon capsule C201 catastrophically exploded during testing, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in a November 2019 DM-2 planning date officially released by NASA more three months later.
Crew Dragon stumbles, but optimism remains
As is often said, things were going perfectly up to the point that they weren’t. Despite 2-3 months of NASA paperwork and review-related delays, SpaceX’s first flightworthy Crew Dragon performed flawlessly during orbital rendezvous, docking, departure, and reentry to the extent that NASA and SpaceX officials were joking on-webcast about their partial disbelief. NASA’s lengthy post-mission review effectively concluded as much, although there is always room for improvement.
Due to those aforementioned DM-1 delays (roughly early January to early March), DM-2’s Crew Dragon assembly and integration was delayed in turn to preserve access in case DM-1 revealed flaws or necessary changes. Things didn’t quite go as planned, but the delayed integration has turned out to be beneficial, preserving access to most of Dragon 2’s critical subsystems without requiring major disassembly before any anomaly-related changes are implemented.
Per a late-May update from CCP manager Kathy Lueders, SpaceX has effectively shifted its Crew Dragon hardware assignments over one to account for the loss of the DM-1 capsule, C201. The vehicle previously assigned to DM-2 has been reassigned to a critical in-flight abort (IFA) test, previously meant to use flight-proven C201. Per charts provided during Lueders’ presentation, SpaceX’s replacement DM-2 capsule (likely the capsule previously assigned to the following mission, Crew-1) is in a sort of holding pattern to allow for modifications that may be required after the DM-1 failure investigation concludes.
Per a previous December 2018 update from Lueders, SpaceX’s original DM-2 spacecraft (now assigned to IFA) was expected to be fully assembled, shipped to Pad 39A, and ready for launch by June 2019. Accounting for DM-1’s delays, that spacecraft could likely be ready for the abort test as early as July or August, which meshes with post-anomaly indications that IFA is now scheduled no earlier than fall (September 2019)
All things considered, a pragmatic analysis suggests that Crew Dragon‘s DM-2 launch will most likely happen no earlier than Q1 2020, although miracles (and nightmares) are certainly possible. For the time being, all that really matters to SpaceX is wrapping up the C201 failure investigation as quickly and accurately as possible. Only after the company has publicly announced the results of that investigation should any IFA or DM-2 launch dates be taken with anything less than a full shaker of salt.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
