News
SpaceX set to launch reused Dragon on a new Falcon 9 as NASA requests delay
An electrical fault aboard the International Space Station (ISS) has forced NASA to delay SpaceX’s CRS-17 Cargo Dragon launch from May 1st to May 3rd, giving the station’s crew more time to fix the issues at hand.
A new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster is tasked with launching the spacecraft and completed a static fire test at SpaceX’s LC-40 pad on April 27th. The Cargo Dragon capsule, however, completed its first orbital resupply mission (CRS-12) in September 2017 and has since been refurbished for a second launch. After CRS-17, three launches remain on SpaceX’s CRS1 NASA contract between now and early 2020, after which Dragon 2 (i.e. Crew Dragon) is expected to take over. However, a recent failure during a Crew Dragon test have thrown those plans into question.
Cargo Dragon’s 17th mission
Known as C113, the CRS-12 capsule is the last Dragon 1 manufactured by SpaceX, leaving a fleet of five flight-proven spacecraft for SpaceX to complete the eight remaining ISS resupply missions under its Commercial Resupply Services 1 (CRS1) contract. CRS-17 is the latest installment in SpaceX’s ISS resupply saga and is manifested with ~2500 kg (5500 lb) of cargo.
Along for the ride are NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) and the multi-experiment STP-H6 investigation, two large pieces of hardware that will be delivered to the ISS in Dragon’s unpressurized trunk. After being berthed to the ISS, astronauts will unpack dozens of packages stored inside Cargo Dragon’s cabin. Sometime later, the station’s Canadarm2 will be used to grab OCO-3 and STP-H6 and install each on the outside of the space station, where they will hopefully live long and scientifically fruitful lives.
SpaceX and NASA have assigned a new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster – likely B1056 – to launch CRS-17. To preserve the scene of Crew Dragon C201’s April 20th explosion, the booster will attempt to land around 20 miles (32 km) offshore aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). Originally scheduled for April 25th, CRS-17 was delayed to the 26th, 30th, 1st, and now May 3rd, most of which were requested by NASA for ISS scheduling purposes.
The latest delay – from May 1st to no earlier than (NET) May 3rd – was triggered by an unexpected electrical fault aboard the ISS, cutting the redundancy of its Canadarm2 (SSRMS) control systems from two strings to one. In other words, Canadarm2 – used to ‘grapple’ and berth spacecraft like Cargo Dragon and Cygnus to the station – is now just one electrical fault away from being rendered inoperable. CRS-17 will stay grounded until two-string (i.e. single fault) redundancy is returned to Canadarm2 and additional impacted systems.
In the event that ISS astronauts and NASA ground control are able to repair the electrical systems in a timely fashion, CRS-17 is scheduled to launch at 3:11 am EDT (07:11 UTC) on May 3rd.
In the shadow of Crew Dragon
A recent catastrophic failure of Crew Dragon (i.e. Dragon 2) raises serious questions about SpaceX’s follow-up CRS2 contract, but the nominal plan involves retiring Dragon 1 after CRS-20 and flying all future cargo missions with flight-proven Crew Dragon spacecraft. In the likely event that Crew Dragon C201’s failure delays SpaceX’s CRS2 schedule by several months, there are contingency plans to continue flying refurbished Dragon 1 spacecraft.
However, each Dragon 1 was designed for a maximum of three orbital missions, meaning that SpaceX’s current capsule fleet can support no more than six additional resupply missions before they reach the end of their usable lifespans. SpaceX thus has two potential buffer missions – CRS-21 and CRS-22 – that could theoretically account for up to a year of Dragon 2 delays. Beyond that, additional Dragon 2 delays could create a gap where NASA would have to supply the ISS without SpaceX’s services.
In a best-case scenario, SpaceX and NASA will quickly uncover an unequivocal culprit of C201’s catastrophic explosion, fix the technical and organizational failures that allowed it to happen, and be back on their feet in no time. In reality, it’s likely that the failure will delay future Crew Dragon (and thus Dragon 2) launches by a minimum of 6-12 months. SpaceX will likely need to change up the launch order of its capsules, reassigning DM-2’s Crew Dragon to the in-flight abort (IFA) test and the US Crew Vehicle 1 (USCV-1) Crew Dragon to SpaceX’s first crewed demonstration mission (DM-2). After such a serious and potentially fatal failure, it’s even possible that NASA will require an additional uncrewed orbital launch before permitting SpaceX to fly astronauts on Crew Dragon.
Given that SpaceX’s nominal CRS2 plan involved lightly modifying and reusing Dragon 2s after crewed missions, the future (and schedule) of the company’s Cargo and Crew contracts are intimately intertwined. With any luck, SpaceX and NASA will be able to solve the technical, organizational, and logistical problems now facing them and ensure a stable future for Dragon 2. In the meantime, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-17 mission offers SpaceX a chance to partially verify that Cargo Dragon C201’s issues are are relegated to Dragon 2 and Dragon 2 alone.
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
