News
SpaceX surprises after recovering spacecraft 'trunk' in one piece
In a surprise twist, SpaceX has recovered an expendable ‘trunk’ that launched with Crew Dragon on its January 19th In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, in which the spacecraft successfully escaped from an exploding Falcon 9 rocket.
While recovering pieces of Dragon’s disposable trunk would not have been shocking, SpaceX has returned this particular Crew Dragon trunk to shore in a condition that can only be described as unscathed. The surprise came first on the evening of January 19th, when two separate SpaceX ships returned to Port Canaveral — first and foremost bringing Crew Dragon capsule C205 back to dry land for inspection and possible reuse. However, a separate ship – GO Navigator – followed the ship carrying Crew Dragon not long after, revealing a shockingly intact Dragon trunk on its deck.
At 10:30 am EST (15:30 UTC) on January 19th, Falcon 9 booster B1046, an expendable upper stage, and the newest Crew Dragon spacecraft lifted off from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Launch Complex 39A (Pad 39A) on the spacecraft’s second-ever integrated launch. Designed to push Crew Dragon’s abort systems to their limits, the spacecraft ignited its SuperDraco thrusters around 85 seconds after liftoff, soaring away from a supersonic Falcon 9 and triggering the rocket’s catastrophic (but expected) explosion around 10 seconds later.
A bit like pushing against a wall, Crew Dragon had to fight uphill against a continuous supersonic blast of air to escape the Falcon 9 rocket that launched it, likely adding tens of thousands of pounds (several dozen metric tons) of additional pressure spread out over the top of the capsule. The spacecraft and its detachable trunk section – carrying a solar array, radiators, and four fins – appeared to survive the experience without issue.


The capsule’s SuperDraco engines shut off after about 10 seconds, leaving the integrated spacecraft to coast to an apogee of ~40 km (25 mi), where it finally detached its trunk (pictured above). Designed to be disposable, Crew Dragon features a trunk functionally similar to the one SpaceX has flown almost 20 times on Cargo Dragon (Dragon 1) missions. Crew Dragon’s trunk looks quite a bit different, stretching taller and featuring an interesting conformal solar array (vs. Dragon 1’s deployable panels), as well as radiators (white rectangular panels) the spacecraft needs to maintain thermal equilibrium while in space.
Nominally, Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon launch on Falcon 9, reach orbit, and go about their business of delivering astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station (ISS). After completing their given mission, the trunk section is eventually detached an hour or two before one last reentry burn, eventually returning the spacecraft to Earth. The trunk is thus left in low Earth orbit (LEO), eventually reentering on its own days, weeks, or months later and vaporizing into plasma before it hits Earth’s surface.
While it’s thus surprising that Crew Dragon C205’s trunk section – built primarily out of carbon composites like Falcon 9’s payload fairing and interstage – survived its In-Flight Abort mission more or less intact, the unexpected recovery sadly doesn’t mean that SpaceX has any plans to try to routinely recover or reuse the hardware. If Dragon trunks detached well before orbit, SpaceX might reconsider, but that would defeat their purpose of providing Dragons with power and thermal management while in orbit.
Surviving a terminal-velocity ocean splashdown is certainly no mean feat, but surviving an orbital-velocity atmospheric reentry is magnitudes more challenging, although SpaceX is certainly cognizant of the trade-off. Starship, for example, is expected to include thermal management and power generation systems as an integral part of the (nominally) fully-reusable spaceship and upper stage. At the scale of Crew Dragon, it’s just hard to rationalize doubling or tripling the mass of the spacecraft’s trunk just to tack on a complex recovery system.
All told, both NASA and SpaceX have since indicated that preliminary telemetry from Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort test paints an extremely positive picture and effectively confirmed that the test was a total success. With a little luck, it’s safe to say that Crew Dragon will be sacrificing a trunk section in orbit before returning NASA astronauts to Earth just a few months from now.
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.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
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.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
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.