News
SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft sails home after flawless in-flight abort test
SpaceX’s newest Crew Dragon spacecraft has successfully returned to port aboard one of the company’s dedicated recovery vessels, neatly wrapping up what appears to have been a completely flawless in-flight abort (IFA) test.
Designed to prove that Crew Dragon can safely escape a failing Falcon 9 rocket at essentially any point from the launch pad to orbit, SpaceX voluntarily chose to perform a full-fidelity IFA test – something NASA left up to both it and Boeing. Boeing instead decided to extrapolate from a pad abort test – which SpaceX completed in 2015 – and a presumably large number of digital simulations to verify that Starliner would survive an in-flight abort.
To be clear, NASA is explicitly okay with this, but space agency officials did not shy away from openly embracing the superiority of integrated flight testing at several points both before, during, and after SpaceX’s second Crew Dragon launch. Although it will almost certainly remain (publicly) unsaid, there should be little doubt that for astronauts scheduled to fly on either Crew Dragon and Starliner, the successful completion of in-flight abort and pad abort tests almost certainly engenders at least a little more confidence in the vehicle they will be entrusting their lives to.
It’s worth noting that although NASA argues – perhaps soundly – that digital modeling, a pad abort test, and an orbital flight test are enough to determine whether any given spacecraft is safe enough to launch US astronauts, the unspoken reality – or at least a large part of it – is that cost is a major concern. At this point in time, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) contracts are expected to cost a total of $3.1B for SpaceX and $5.1B for Boeing – both including at least four total orbital launches of their respective spacecraft.
In simpler terms, despite the fact that SpaceX has received a full $2 billion (~40%) less than Boeing to accomplish the same tasks in the same time, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon completed a flawless orbital launch debut and space station rendezvous with Crew Dragon almost 10 months before Boeing’s Starliner suffered a serious partial failure in space. Simultaneously, for $2 billion less, SpaceX has now given NASA a seemingly flawless full-up in-flight abort test of Crew Dragon before the space agency will fully entrust the spacecraft with the safety of its astronauts.
In the last 10 or so weeks, Boeing has thus suffered a minor Starliner parachute failure, a far more concerning spacecraft failure during its first orbital flight test (OFT), has no plans to perform an in-flight abort test, and nevertheless still wants Starliner’s next launch to carry NASA astronauts.
A clear path ahead
SpaceX, on the other hand, has now completed two seemingly-flawless integrated launches of Crew Dragon on a Falcon 9 rocket – one of which successfully rendezvoused with the ISS and returned to Earth; the other of which has now proven that Crew Dragon can whisk astronauts to safety from a failing supersonic rocket. SpaceX says it will carefully inspect capsule C205 and eventually refurbish the spacecraft, although it’s entirely unclear what kind of mission the company could foreseeably reuse it on in the near future.
Speaking shortly after Crew Dragon’s second flawless launch, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said that he had spoken with NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine just prior to the post-launch press conference and together came up with a response to the most obvious question: when will SpaceX fly astronauts? In short, Musk was almost certain that all the hardware needed for the Demo-2 astronaut test flight – Falcon 9 booster, F9 upper stage, Crew Dragon capsule C206, and a Dragon trunk – will be completed, tested, and delivered to Cape Canaveral by late-February 2020.
If everything goes exactly as planned, NASA – prior to launch – indicated that an early-March 2020 launch was actually within reach. After launch, Musk tempered expectations, stating that SpaceX would almost certainly launch its first NASA astronauts sometime in Q2 – perhaps as early as April. Regardless, it looks like we wont have to wait more than a few months to find out.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
