News
SpaceX pushes boundaries of fairing recovery with breathtaking sunrise launch [photos]
SpaceX has soared past the halfway point of completion for Iridium’s next-generation NEXT constellation with the successful launch of satellites 41-50 earlier this morning. SpaceX has three additional launches contracted with Iridium for a total of eight. Despite intentionally ditching the flight-proven first stage booster in the Pacific Ocean, SpaceX attempted to recover one half of the payload fairing; an effort acknowledged to be predominately experimental at this point.
-
- F9 B1041 gives one final swan song with the successful launch of 10 more Iridium NEXT satellites. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Although fog and camera difficulties slightly marred the shot, note the details in Falcon 9’s normally white-hot exhaust. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 1041 rises above a sea of fog for one last mission to orbit. Half of its fairing made a surprise appearance in port on Saturday. (Pauline Acalin)
Iridium-5 continues a recent trend of monthly launches out of SpaceX’s Vandenberg Air Force Base launch facilities – the company’s SLC-4E pad is known to take a bit longer than its East coast brethren for refurbishment and repairs between launches, typically maxing out approximately one launch per month. This launch also marks another flight-proven booster intentionally expended, likely in part because the West Coast drone ship Just Read The Instructions is currently out of commission, awaiting the delivery of critical subsystems stripped to repair the Eastern OCISLY.
As of posting, all 10 Iridium NEXT satellites have been successfully deployed into low Earth orbit, marking the successful completion of this mission. On the recovery side of the mission, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had initially teased Mr Steven’s upcoming fairing catch attempt – his silence since providing a T-0 around 7:44 am PST presumably speaks to the experimental nature of these fairing recovery efforts, and hints that this attempt may not have been successful.
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 30, 2018
A couple hours after launch, Musk took to Twitter to confirm that this fairing recovery effort had failed, largely due to the complexity of safely parafoiling such a large, fast, and ungainly object. “[Helicopter] drop tests” are planned for coming weeks in order to put to bed the problems ailing fairing recovery. As SpaceX announcer and materials engineer Michael Hammersley noted, “the ultimate goal is full recovery and reuse of the entire vehicle,” and experimental fairing recovery efforts push SpaceX one step closer to that ambition.
-
- F9 B1041 arrives in port after its first successful mission, Iridium-3, in October 2017. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- 1041 flew for its second and final time earlier this morning, sans any landing aboard JRTI. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- B1041 presumably soft-landed in the Pacific, as did its fairing. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- RIP. (Pauline Acalin)
Space (regulation) oddity
Perhaps the most unusual feature of this launch was an announcement soon after the webcast began that NOAA (the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration) apparently restricted SpaceX’s ability to provide live coverage of Falcon 9’s upper stage once in orbit, and the webcast thus ended moments after the second stage Merlin Vacuum engine shut off. By all appearances, this is fairly unprecedented: NOAA is tasked with “licensing…operations of private space-based remote sensing systems” with their Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs (CRSRA) branch, but they’ve been quite inept and heavy-handed in their implementation of Earth imaging regulation. Nominally, the purpose of that regulation is to protect sensitive US security facilities and activities from the unblinking eyes of private, orbital imaging satellites, but NOAA has quite transparently exploited its power in ways that create extreme uncertainty and near-insurmountable barriers to entry for prospective commercial Earth-imaging enterprises.
What an absolutely beautiful launch at Vandenberg this morning. Congratulations to SpaceX on another successful mission accomplished! #SpaceX #Iridium5 @Teslarati pic.twitter.com/hsp7H5bv8J
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) March 30, 2018
Presumably, this protects their (and their prime contractors’) vested interest in NOAA’s continuing quasi-monopoly over Earth sciences and weather-related satellite production and operations, a segment of the agency’s budget known to aggressively devour as much of NOAA’s budget as practicable. In this sense, something as arbitrary as preventing a launch provider like SpaceX from showing live, low-resolution (functionally useless) video feeds from orbit would be thoroughly disappointing, but in no way surprising. In this case, the restriction is comically transparent in its blatant inconsistency: SpaceX has flown more than 50 launches over more than a decade, all of which featured some form of live coverage of the upper stage once in orbit, and none of which NOAA objected to. Fingers crossed that this absurd restriction can be lifted sooner than later.
-
- No fairing snack for Mr Steven this time around. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- PAZ’s recovered fairing half sadly cracked beyond repair while being hauled aboard Mr Steven. (Pauline Acalin)
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
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.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
