News
SpaceX says crew spacecraft abort test still on track for 2019 launch
NASA recently invited members of the media to apply for access to SpaceX’s Crew Dragon in-flight abort (IFA) test and, as of December 5th, the company reaffirmed that the crucial test is still on track to launch just weeks from now.
In September, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed that Crew Dragon’s IFA spacecraft and Falcon 9 was scheduled to arrive in Florida within a few weeks. Days later, NASA confirmed that the rocket and spacecraft arrived in Florida on October 3rd, sooner, in fact, than Musk had predicted. Over the next few weeks, SpaceX technicians and engineers effectively closed out Crew Dragon capsule C205, priming it for operations and installing its body panels.
On November 13th, about six weeks after arriving in Florida, SpaceX successfully tested Crew Dragon’s redesigned propellant plumbing and high-pressure gas systems by static firing its Draco thrusters and SuperDraco abort engines. The successful static fire test lasted around 9 seconds, mirroring the SuperDraco impulse and thruster inputs the spacecraft would need to demonstrate in an actual in-flight abort. Crew Dragon has four sets of two SuperDraco engines capable of producing a combined thrust of more than 130,000 lbs (570 kN), almost as much thrust as the original SpaceX Merlin 1D engines used on Falcon 9 in the early 2010s.
Meant to verify that SpaceX has successfully redesigned Crew Dragon after the spacecraft suffered a catastrophic explosion during a very similar static fire attempt, November 13th’s was followed by an exhaustive hardware inspection and data review, some of which is likely still ongoing. Although NASA’s media invite suggests that a given launch event could be just a month or so away, there is a ton of uncertainty when dealing with major launches of new hardware (like Crew Dragon), meaning delays are all but guaranteed.
During a pre-launch media briefing ahead of SpaceX’s CRS-19 Cargo Dragon launch, director of Dragon mission management Jessica Jensen answered a question about Crew Dragon’s IFA test, cautiously stating that SpaceX teams are “targeting [a] December” launch. During SpaceX’s December 5th CRS-19 launch webcast, Dragon Engineering Manager John Federspiel briefly brought up Crew Dragon, noting that SpaceX was completing “minor refurbishment” following its successful static fire.
Most notably, he stated the IFA test was “targeted for February of 2020”, while Crew Dragon’s subsequent ‘Demo-2’ astronaut launch debut was expected to follow no earlier than (NET) “the first quarter of [2020]”, implying either February or March.
As it happened, SpaceX and several media outlets almost immediately attempted to correct the record, instead suggesting that Crew Dragon’s abort test is still tracking towards a launch later this month. Given that a senior Dragon engineering manager was the one to unblinkingly – and without correction – state that IFA is NET February 2020, there’s a strong possibility that he is technically correct but was not supposed to publicize the mission’s delay. At the same time, SpaceX appears to be firm on its claim that IFA is still aiming for a late-December launch. Delays would be no surprise – Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 launch debut took an agonizing three months to go from heading to the launchpad for the first to actually lifting off, almost entirely due to minor technical bugs and NASA paperwork.
Regardless, with less than four weeks left in 2019, SpaceX has an exceptionally tight schedule ahead of it to meet that December 2019 IFA launch goal and will effectively have to static fire IFA’s Falcon 9 before the end of the week or crush Crew Dragon’s inaugural processing time by at least a factor of four to achieve it. As such, a delay in 2020 should be all but expected at this point. With any luck, however, Crew Dragon will successfully perform its in-flight abort within the next 4-8 weeks, leaving SpaceX in a good place to prepare for its inaugural astronaut launch a few months later.
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
