News
SpaceX Crew Dragon switches ports to make room for Boeing’s Starliner do-over
Update: For the second time, a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft has successfully swapped International Space Station (ISS) docking ports in orbit – this time to make way for Boeing’s planned Starliner Orbital Test Flight do-over.
If Starliner’s second orbital flight test is more successful than the first, which failed almost immediately after launch, the Boeing spacecraft will launch no earlier than July 30th, rendezvous and dock with the ISS, and spend approximately five days at the station before attempting to return to Earth. Once Starliner departs, freeing up the forward docking port, SpaceX and NASA will likely have to perform a second Crew-2 port relocation, moving Dragon back to its original port to set the stage for the CRS-23 Cargo Dragon resupply mission scheduled in late August.
SpaceX and NASA are on track for the Crew-2 Dragon spacecraft currently docked to the International Space Station (ISS) to perform a “port relocation” maneuver early Wednesday, effectively opening the door for Boeing’s Starliner flight test do-over.
Scheduled to launch on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket no earlier than (NET) July 30th, Boeing’s Starliner will be flying for the first time since the spacecraft’s near-catastrophic Orbital Flight Test (OFT) debut in December 2019. During Starliner’s inaugural test flight, a combination of inept Boeing software development, shoddy quality control, and inexplicably lax NASA oversight allowed the spacecraft to launch with inoperable software.
As a result, things went wrong mere seconds after Atlas V – which performed nominally – deployed Starliner. Almost as simple as using the wrong clock, the first software fault – something that would have been instantly caught with even the most rudimentary integrated systems test – caused Starliner to think it was in a different part of the OFT mission and waste much of its fuel with thousands of unnecessary thruster firings.
Aside from pushing Starliner’s maneuvering thrusters beyond their design limits, those unplanned and unexpected misfirings also threw the spacecraft off course, obfuscating Boeing and NASA’s ability to communicate and command the spacecraft and troubleshoot the situation at hand. Eventually, the company regained control of Starliner, but not before it had burned through most of its propellant reserves – precluding plans for to rendezvous and dock with the ISS.
Less than three hours before reentry, Boeing also uncovered a separate thruster-related software issue that could have caused the Starliner capsule to lose stability and re-impact its expendable trunk section after separation.
Ultimately, with so many issues and a failure to gather any kind of data related to operations at and around the ISS, NASA thankfully forced Boeing to plan to repeat OFT with Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2). Scheduled to launch in December 2020 as of the second half of that year, OFT-2 ultimately slipped – both for scheduling and technical reasons – to March, June, and finally July 30th, 2021.
More than 19 months after Starliner’s ill-fated debut, NASA and Boeing are now almost ready for the spacecraft’s critical do-over. For unknown reasons, though, NASA and/or Boeing apparently need (or prefer) Starliner to use a specific docking port – the same port SpaceX’s second operational Crew Dragon spacecraft is currently docked to. According to NASA and Boeing, Starliner needs to use that forward docking port because it has not been qualified for zenith docking, which is a bit more complex. As a result, SpaceX and NASA have scheduled a port relocation maneuver around 7am EDT (UTC-4) on Wednesday, July 21st.
SpaceX’s first relocation occurred in early April to prepare for the arrival of a second Crew Dragon later that month. When Crew-1 Dragon departed a few weeks after the maneuver, it would leave the station’s zenith (space-facing) port free for a Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft scheduled to arrive around one month later. Due to the station’s geometry and port layout, only the zenith port allows its robotic Canadarm2 arm to unload unpressurized cargo from Dragon’s trunk.
Already at the forward port, the Crew-2 Dragon will thus be moving to the zenith port for Starliner’s brief 1-2 week stay at the ISS. However, as may have become clear, Crew Dragon will then have to re-relocate to the forward port for any future Cargo Dragon missions – one of which happens to be scheduled to launch with an important unpressurized payload as early as August 29th.
Regardless of why, it’s hard to ever complain about seeing Dragons fly. Tune in around 6:30 am EDT (10:30 UTC) to watch Crew Dragon C206 maneuver around an orbital space station.
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
