News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spaceship marches towards launch with vacuum chamber test
SpaceX has published the latest photo of its next-generation Crew Dragon spacecraft, showing the crewed vehicle preparing to be put through its paces inside a NASA thermal vacuum chamber located in Cleveland, Ohio. If the tests are completed without issue, the Dragon’s next destination will be Cape Canaveral, Florida, where it will prepare for an inaugural launch targeted for the fourth quarter of 2018.
In the photo released on June 20th, SpaceX’s DM-1 Crew Dragon capsule (C202 in shorthand: [C]apsule, Dragon [2], serial number [02]) is seen being craned by SpaceX technicians into the thermal vacuum chamber at NASA’s Plum Brook testing facilities. Located in Ohio, Plum Brook’s vacuum chamber is unique because of both its size and its ability to fairly accurate replicate the actual environment faced by satellites and spacecraft once in space. Most importantly, this includes the extreme thermal conditions those vehicles are subjected to by constant ~90-minute day-night cycles in low Earth orbit (LEO).
Without Earth’s cozy atmosphere to act as both a heat sink and insulating blanket once on orbit, there is simply nothing there to protect spacecraft like Crew Dragon from the absolute extremes of direct solar radiation (sunlight), total darkness, and a complete lack of cooling by conduction and convection. In order to avoid overheating, Crew Dragon thus needs to bring along its own means of cooling in the form of onboard radiators to shed excess heat. The use of white paint on spacecraft further aids this process by selectively preventing the absorption of solar radiation while simultaneously efficiently emitting in infrared wavelengths.
-
- SpaceX’s Demo Mission-1 Crew Dragon seen preparing for vacuum tests at a NASA-run facility, June 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- The DM-1 Crew Dragon testing inside SpaceX’s anechoic chamber, May 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- An overview of Crew Dragon’s main features, all of which can be seen in the real-life photos. The Cargo Dragon version will likely remove seats and windows. (SpaceX)
How to prep your Dragon
Crew Dragon’s primary radiators are elegantly integrated into vertical panels installed on the cylindrical bottom segment, known as the trunk, while the craft’s power source – solar panels in this case – are installed in a curved array on the opposite side of the trunk. Intriguingly, the trunks displayed in the two most recent photos of the DM-1 Crew Dragon appear to be almost completely different, and the trunk at Plum Brook does not appear to have its solar arrays or radiators installed. Nominally, SpaceX would use the thermal vacuum capabilities of the Ohio facility to fully vet Crew Dragon’s ability to maintain optimal temperatures on orbit, but the particularly tests planned for the DM-1 capsule and trunk may be of a slightly different type.
-
- On February 28, SpaceX completed a demonstration of their ability to recover the crew and capsule after a nominal water splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean, just off the coast of Florida. (SpaceX)
-
- Astronaut Bob Behnken examines a sample of Crew Dragon docking and crew transfer hardware, the mechanisms that will allow the spacecraft to dock with the International Space Station and allow crew to enter the orbital outpost. Taken March 2017. (SpaceX)
Regardless, after testing at Plum Brook is completed, the DM-1 Crew Dragon capsule will be shipped to a newly-constructed processing facility in Cape Canaveral, Florida, while it’s understood that the trunk installed in SpaceX’s June 20th photo will be returned to the Hawthorne, CA factory to be outfitted with flight hardware (presumably including cameras, radiators, solar arrays, and a healthy amount of insulation). It’s unclear when the two segments of DM-1 will part ways and head on to their next destinations, but it’s likely that testing at Plum Brook will last for at least a handful of weeks.
Birds of a feather
In the meantime, several additional Crew Dragon capsules/trunks and the Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets that will launch them are in a variety of states of fabrication and assembly at SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory. B1051, the Block 5 booster assigned to the first uncrewed Demo-1 launch of Crew Dragon, was reported by NASA to be undergoing propellant tank integration in March 2018, implying that the rocket should be at or near the final stages of integration, and will likely ship to McGregor, Texas for static fire testing late this summer.
As of June 15th, SpaceX’s third Falcon 9 Block 5 booster was vertical on the Texas test stand, likely nearing its own static fire test before being shipped to SpaceX’s Vandenberg Air Force Base launch facilities for the July 20th launch of Iridium-7. While possible that a booster slipped past the watchful eyes and ears of SpaceX enthusiast observers, it’s probable that the rocket currently in McGregor is B1048, implying that a minimum of two additional booster shipments and Texas test programs remain before B1051 can be prepped to launch SpaceX’s first Crew Dragon mission. At the current marginally accelerated booster production and shipment schedule (~ 30-day cadence), B1051 would be expected to leave Hawthorne for Texas no earlier than (NET) late August or early September. This meshes with a recent comment from Commercial Crew astronaut Suni Williams:
“I think we’re going to get the [uncrewed[ demo flights probably by the end of the year, maybe a little after that . . . and then the crew demo missions next year.”
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 completed its first launch on May 11, carrying the Bangabandhu-1 communications satellite to geostationary transfer orbit. (Tom Cross)
-
- SpaceX’s second Block 5 booster was spotted vertical at the company’s McGregor, TX testing facilities. That booster has since been shipped to Florida for a mid-July launch, with B1048 now in its place as of June 15. (Aero Photo)
-
- A matte-silver Block 5 Merlin 1D rocket engine seen preparing to leave SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory for testing in Texas. (SpaceX)
Anticipating acceptance and prelaunch testing that is far more extensive and time-consuming than typically seen with SpaceX’s commercial missions, it’s safe to bet that the first uncrewed Crew Dragon mission – DM-1 – will launch from Kennedy Space Center in November or December 2018. While those operations proceed over the course of the rest of this year, SpaceX expects roughly 10 additional Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches to occur. It’s gonna be a busy H2.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
