News
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket looks no worse for wear after dual launches
SpaceX’s first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster has returned to Port Canaveral, FL once again after the rocket’s second successful launch, likely the first of countless reuses to come over the next months and years. Of note, B1046.2 (Booster 1046, flight 2) was by all appearances in as good of condition as it was when it lifted off from Pad 40 just three days prior.
While it may be difficult to immediately distinguish between B1046’s second launch and recovery and those of previous, older Falcon 9 boosters, Block 5 is a quite simply an entirely different story. Moreover, the fact that SpaceX went from the major upgrade’s launch debut to first booster reflight in barely three months is an extraordinarily good indication that Block 5’s first flightworthy design (especially the parts not visible to the public) is very close to its engineers’ theoretical intentions.
Some additional shots of today's B1046.2 return to port. @SpaceX @SpaceXUpdates @elonmusk @SpaceXFleet #SpaceX pic.twitter.com/d4ivQ8PRuU
— The Aerospace Geek (@ThAerospaceGeek) August 10, 2018
Falcon 9 B1046’s second recovery also happened to be the quickest yet for SpaceX by a healthy margin, taking just 4.5 days to travel 400 miles back to port, be lifted off drone ship Of Course I Still Love You, have its legs removed, and be loaded horizontally onto SpaceX’s dedicated Cape Canaveral booster transporter. Whether or not the rocket itself is ready for another flight with absolutely zero refurbishing in between, this demonstration of just how quickly SpaceX’s infrastructure can operate indicates that much of the framework needed for truly rapid reuse is already largely in place.
Once SpaceX is confident that Block 5 can be reflown with little more than new fuel added and has lined up multiple payloads for launch in just a few days or weeks, it’s clear that the company will already have the ability to launch (and reuse rockets) so quickly that drone ship availability will become the primary bottleneck. For example, if B1046 could have shipped to one of SpaceX’s launch sites moments after it was loaded on its transporter and prepped for the second launch within 24-48 hours of going horizontal, it’s extremely unlikely that OCISLY could be readied for another booster recovery and towed several hundred miles off the coast in time to catch B1046 after its third launch.
-
- B1046 returned to Port Canaveral shortly after its May 4 debut, and is now being carefully analyzed as pathfinder hardware. (Tom Cross)
-
- Soon after, B1046 was spotted on its way to a refurbishment facility around a week after its May 11 launch debut. (Instagram /u/tersco)
-
- It’s currently unclear whether B1046 or B1048 will become the first SpaceX rocket to fly three times. (Tom Cross)
-
- 60 hours after docking, B1046 was loaded horizontally onto its transporter. (Tom Cross)
-
- SpaceX’s rocket-securing robot, known as Octagrabber, seen on OCISLY after another successful rocket recovery, August 12th. (Tom Cross)
As such, barring the extremely rapid completion of SpaceX’s third drone ship (named A Shortfall of Gravitas), it can be all but guaranteed that SpaceX will need to use its land-based Landing Zone 1 to accomplish CEO Elon Musk’s challenge of launching, landing, and relaunching the same Falcon 9 booster in less than 24 hours sometime before the end of 2019. Even then, it seems likely that SpaceX would either need to dramatically improve the turnaround capabilities of one of its launch sites or conduct those back-to-back launches using both of the company’s two Florida pads (LC-39A and LC-40).
Regardless, the first reuse of a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster unequivocally marks the beginning of a new era for SpaceX and for orbital rocketry worldwide. According to one of SpaceX’s webcast hosts during the second flight of B1046 (for the launch of Telkom 4/Merah Putih), the rocket’s third launch (a first for SpaceX) is already in planning for an unspecified mission later this year. As SpaceX rockets begin to rack up 3, 5, 10, or more launches apiece and the act of reusing Falcon 9s becomes so routine that it bores all but the most ardent followers, you’ll know that SpaceX has essentially succeeded in the first step of its master plan. Next stop: BFR and Mars.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
