News
SpaceX teases Crew Dragon capsule and spacesuit details in new video
Over the past few weeks, conference presentations given by SpaceX employees like Joy Dunn and Paul Wooster have kicked off with an updated intro reel including unseen slow-motion footage of Falcon Heavy and detailed looks at the company’s spacesuit and Crew Dragon capsule.
Those in the habit of catching SpaceX launches live will be readily familiar with the company’s intro reel – it’s marked the start of live coverage for nearly every webcast in the past three or more years. The current intro reel has remained more or less unchanged since the first successful Falcon 9 booster recovery in December 2015, and this updated intro reel will be a breath of fresh air for what is still admittedly an amazing video. Still, it’s hard to say “no” to slow-motion footage of Falcon Heavy.
Most recently shown at an MIT Media Lab conference during SpaceX Principal Mars Development Engineer Paul Wooster’s presentation, the new reel has – somewhat unsurprisingly – been built around the incredibly successful inaugural Falcon Heavy launch, as well as some more recent footage of the company’s Cargo Dragon docking with the International Space Station. Additional clips show what appears to be details of the finalized Crew Dragon – set to debut in late 2018 – and a closeup of SpaceX’s internally-designed spacesuit. Sticking out as the only truly unusual snippet, the end of the new reel features parts of the animation SpaceX released in 2016 during the debut of their Mars rocket, the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), which has since been replaced with the similar but different BFR.
While entirely possible that the inclusion of ITS footage in an intro reel clearly updated since 2018 is intentional, it seems more likely that SpaceX has yet to publicize this new video partially because they don’t yet have a similar animation featuring their updated Mars rocket and spaceship. CEO Elon Musk’s recent comments on the encouraging progress being made with the design and construction of the first BFR prototype suggests that such an updated animation could be just around the corner, if not full-up teaser photos of the construction progress. Set to begin suborbital hop testing as early as the first half of 2019 and orbital launches by end of 2020, SpaceX’s Mars ambitions may still feel far away, but the tech that could make them real is already undergoing preliminary construction and testing.
Sooner still is SpaceX’s upcoming debut of Crew Dragon, the spacecraft that will eventually both carry astronauts to the ISS and later replace Cargo Dragon. Initially intended to land near the launch pad on legs, akin to Falcon 9, SpaceX has since canceled that work, largely due to numerous delays that would have almost certainly been incurred in the process of NASA certification of such a new and unproven technology. Instead, Musk made it clear that SpaceX would instead put its time, energy, and money into the development of BFR and BFS, sidestepping NASA’s sometimes-smothering and counterproductive paternalism for the time being.
Crew Dragon will instead be recovered after landing in the ocean, a disappointing concession that is at least partially cushioned by SpaceX’s recent successes and growing expertise with the reuse of their similarly sea-recovered Cargo Dragons. While ocean-recovery certainly won’t lend itself to ease of reuse quite as readily as powered landings, SpaceX will likely be able to significantly drop the cost of Crew Dragon launches in the future by efficiently refurbishing each recovered capsule. Less likely but still a possibility, the company could adopt something similar to the fairing-catcher Mr Steven – essentially a giant net aboard a highly-maneuverable boat – to recover Crew Dragon without submerging the spacecraft in saltwater. As of March 2018, at least according to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center director, SpaceX is still on track to conduct its first uncrewed launch of Crew Dragon as early as August 2018, with the first crewed mission following in December 2018 if all goes well.
-
- ITS was much wider and taller than the updated BFR, making it considerably easier to develop. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster and spaceship, tiny human for scale. (SpaceX)
-
- Astronaut Bob Behnken emerges from the hatch of a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft in manufacturing at SpaceX’s headquarters and factory in Hawthorne, CA. (SpaceX)
SpaceX’s spacesuit is a critical component of their crewed spaceflight efforts, and has been designed and built in-house to ensure that astronauts can survive the emergency depressurization of a Crew Dragon capsule, evidenced by Musk’s recent suggestions that senior suit engineers successfully survived stints in a vacuum chamber while wearing it. Thanks to the staggering success of Falcon Heavy and its iconic Starman and Tesla Roadster payload, SpaceX’s spacesuit will undoubtedly be a badge of honor for all future astronauts who fly aboard Crew Dragon.
Starman gives one final farewell to Earth as he departs for deep space aboard Musk’s Tesla Roadster. (SpaceX)
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
