News
SpaceX’s drone ship fleet spied prepping for future rocket recoveries
Just shy of three weeks since SpaceX’s last launch and the better part of half a year since the last successful ocean recovery, both of the company’s drone ships have been spotted in recent weeks being refurbished, refitted, and prepared for a return to the ocean.
The unusual drought of drone ship landings was nearly brought to an end in early March, but that recovery attempt – following the successful launch of Hispasat 30W-6 – was precluded by extreme weather in the landing zone, forcing booster 1044 to soft-land in the Atlantic with a swan call of landing legs and titanium grid fins. Several weeks before 1044’s demise, the inaugural launch of Falcon Heavy also saw the first failed booster recovery attempt since June 2016, ending a successful streak of 17 flawless Falcon 9 recoveries – though both side boosters did manage a spectacular, synchronized landing at LZs 1 and 2.
Before the Falcon Heavy attempt, East coast drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) successfully recovered a Falcon 9 booster for the last time in late October 2017, a handful of weeks after the successful recovery of SES-11 – the source of a small fire that famously destroyed SpaceX’s robotic stage securer, nicknamed Roomba or Octagrabber. Over the several months, since it was damaged, Octagrabber has gradually undergone refurbishment at SpaceX’s Port Canaveral berth, most recently appearing back on OCISLY for post-refurb testing.
With the introduction of Falcon 9 Block 5 presumably a month or less away, the days of expending once flight-proven boosters will almost certainly be over, aside from missions that truly require the booster’s full performance. As discussed yesterday, regardless of whether Block 5 is truly ready for the limelight, SpaceX is no more than two months away from effectively running out of all older boosters: the once-flown B1045 (TESS) will likely be the only flight-worthy heritage booster remaining by early May. In other words, every single SpaceX launch in the second half of 2018 is all but guaranteed to attempt recovery, either by land or sea.
-
- OCISLY as seen by Tom Cross on March 5, readying for a busy future of rocket recoveries. (Tom Cross)
-
- Roomba was spied aboard OCISLY for the first time in months earlier this month. (Instagram /u/grimlok77)
OCISLY is effectively prepared to support these upcoming recovery attempts, and its Octagrabber may be as well. However, OCISLY was reportedly damaged by Falcon Heavy’s center core, despite the fact that it quite visibly missed the drone ship. Presumably, the forlorn booster acted as a sort of depth charge, thus damaging beyond repair the drone ship’s sensitive maneuvering and station-keeping thrusters. Before Falcon Heavy, it’s likely that the same fire that burned Octagrabber also damaged the hydraulic systems of one or several of OCISLY’s thrusters. These conclusions are supported by the fact that SpaceX’s West coast drone ship, Just Read The Instructions (JRTI), has visibly been stripped of its functional thrusters, presumably used to keep OCISLY operational in anticipation of Falcon Heavy and later Hispasat 30W-6.
Mr Steven, SpaceX’s only current fairing recovery vessel, has also been spotted conducting some sort of sea trials just off the shore of Port of San Pedro and LA, presumably honing recovery operations and giving its pilots time to practice catching fairings. Following the launch of PAZ and SpaceX’s own prototype Starlink satellites, the company managed its first-ever intact fairing recovery, although it missed Mr Steven’s net by a few hundred feet. As stated by Musk, it should be relatively easy to go from missing by a few hundred feet to successfully catching the fairing, and it’s likely that the imminent launch of Iridium-5 (7:19 am PDT, March 29) will attempt to close that gap and actually catch a fairing halve. On the other hand, the booster – flight-proven during the October 2017 launch of Iridium-3 – will likely soft-land in the Pacific Ocean because JRTI is currently unable to support ocean recoveries, lacking two of its four thrusters.
-
- Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin took a trip down to Port of San Pedro to check up on JRTI, March 25. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Note one of JRTI’s thrusters here, quite clearly not installed. A second one sits just out of sight on the right. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s West coast drone ship Just Read The Instructions getting some much needed fresh paint. (Instagram, anonymous)
Follow us for live updates, behind-the-scenes sneak peeks, and a sea of beautiful photos from our 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
