News
SpaceX's Crew Dragon astronaut launch debut schedule revealed by Elon Musk
On the heels of a brand new animation simulating the spacecraft’s next orbital launch milestone, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed a tentative schedule for Crew Dragon’s astronaut launch debut.
Known as Demo-2, short for Crew Dragon’s second orbital demonstration mission, the launch could make SpaceX the first commercial company in history to send astronauts to space (i.e. orbit), as well as the first private company to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). If things go as planned over the next several months, that should kick off a new era where NASA will routinely rely on SpaceX (and Boeing) to ensure that the US has a continued presence in space.
The International Space Station has been continuously crewed by astronauts since October 31st, 2000, representing nearly two decades that humanity has had an uninterrupted presence in space. Supported by regular NASA Space Shuttle and Russian Soyuz launches that enabled space agencies to safely send astronauts to and from the space station, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner are nearly ready to pick up the torch that NASA and the United States fumbled when the Shuttle was prematurely canceled in 2011.
Over the last five years, SpaceX has been working tirelessly to design, build, and test Crew Dragon – all in the name of ensuring that it will be one of the most reliable and capable human-rated spacecraft ever flown once it begins taking astronauts to and from the ISS. As with almost all human-rated spacecraft in history, Crew Dragon’s development has not been without its hurdles and detours, ranging from challenges with the spacecraft’s parachute recovery systems to a catastrophic capsule explosion during thruster testing.
As a result, SpaceX has put extra effort into optimizing and redesigning Crew Dragon’s many subsystems to ensure that all work exactly as intended. Thankfully, all of Crew Dragon’s development hurdles have occurred during testing specifically designed to reveal such problems, meaning that no humans have been harmed (or killed) over the course of the program. In the history of human spaceflight, it has often been the case that catastrophic spacecraft failure modes are only discovered after operational flights began, resulting in the deaths of numerous astronauts during Soyuz, Space Shuttle, and SpaceShipTwo – as well as three NASA astronauts during Apollo 1 ground testing.
Spaceflight is nevertheless a dangerous endeavor, at least for the time being, so it’s entirely possible that Crew Dragon will ultimately suffer accidents or failures during crewed missions, evidenced most recently by Starliner’s failure to reach the space station during the Boeing’s spacecraft’s first orbital launch. Still, both companies are working hard to ensure that even in the event of a failure, their spacecraft are able to protect their astronaut passengers and safely return them to Earth.
In line with that, SpaceX (unlike Boeing) opted to perform a live In-Flight Abort (IFA) test with Crew Dragon before allowing the spacecraft to begin astronaut launches. Scheduled to launch as early as January 11th, SpaceX will launch a Dragon spacecraft atop Falcon 9 and simulate a rocket failure during the most stressful point of launch. If Crew Dragon can fire up its abort thrusters and whisk its hypothetical passengers to safety, chances are that the spacecraft will be able to do the same at any other point during launch – from before liftoff all the way to orbit.
SpaceX has been developing its first human-rated spacecraft since it began build Cargo Dragon more than a decade ago – all paths for the company have ultimately pointed towards human spaceflight. According to CEO Elon Musk, the Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 launch vehicle assigned to support the company’s inaugural astronaut launch will be in Florida and ready for flight as early as February 2020, a few-month delay compared to the often overly-optimistic executive’s previous Nov/Dec 2019 target.
Although the hardware could be ready to launch three months (or less) from now, Musk believes that the NASA preflight reviews that must follow will likely take “a few more months” – unfortunately likely given that Crew Dragon’s uncrewed launch debut (Demo-1) was likely ready for flight almost two months before NASA finally cleared SpaceX to launch.
Ultimately, as long as Crew Dragon’s IFA test goes well next month, it’s likely that the spacecraft will launch twice in the first half of 2020, potentially making history sometime in the second quarter.
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
