News
SpaceX transports Falcon 9 to launch site ahead of Block 5’s second expendable launch ever
Photos published on July 28th by customer Spacecom show a sooty SpaceX Falcon 9 booster and fresh upper stage on their way to LC-40 for the launch of the AMOS-17 communications satellite, scheduled to lift off no earlier than 6:51 pm EDT (22:51 UTC), August 3rd.
Sadly, the booster will reportedly be expended during the launch. According to Spacecom, AMOS-17 – built by Boeing – is an undeniably large satellite, weighing more than 6500 kg (14,300 lb) and featuring a solar array wingspan of ~35m (115 ft). SpaceX has certainly launched larger satellites than AMOS-17 and still recovered their Falcon 9 boosters, but this mission is somewhat unique and SpaceX is obviously willing to go the extra mile in this case.
In a surprise development, Spacecom officially confirmed that AMOS-17 will be SpaceX’s second expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 launch in the rocket’s ~15 months of operations, following in the footsteps of its expendable December 2018 launch debut. This is more than a little disappointing, thanks in large part to the fact that SpaceX has developed Falcon 9 (and Heavy) reusability to such a level of maturity that fully expendable Falcon launches just feel wrong.
In fact, just a month ago, SpaceX reached a major milestone of reusability when it recovered two flight-proven Falcon Heavy boosters and became the first company in history to launch and land more orbital-class rocket boosters than it has expended (as of June 2019: 81 launched, 43 landed). SpaceX followed this up with landing #44 after Falcon 9 B1056.2 successfully completed its second launch on July 25th.
While expending a Block 5 booster that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated could launch upwards of 20-30 times is certainly disappointing, the sting of Block 5’s second expendable mission is at least soothed by the knowledge that it will be this booster’s third and final launch. The first expendable Block 5 launch – the US Air Force’s GPS III SV01 mission – made use of a brand new booster (B1054).
A (hopefully) worthy sacrifice
In a small way, Falcon 9 B1047’s premature demise could easily be viewed as a sort of symbolic eye-for-an-eye sacrifice. Although not a literal 1:1 replacement, AMOS-17 is still essentially a follow-on to Amos-6, destroyed on September 1st, 2016 when Falcon 9 suffered an exotic COPV failure that led to a massive explosion (Musk called it a ‘fast fire’).
Installed on top of the rocket during what was meant to be a pre-launch static fire test, the ~$200M+ Amos-6 satellite was not spared from the destruction and owner Spacecom ultimately received an insurance settlement it then used (in part) to purchase AMOS-17. Additionally, instead of accepting a cash payout from SpaceX, Spacecom chose the contractual alternative: a free Falcon 9 launch of their choice.
Is it a coincidence that a Block 5 booster is going to be expended as part of that replacement launch? Almost certainly, yes. At a minimum, SpaceX – essentially launching for free per a contractual agreement with Spacecom – has clearly decided along with Spacecom that putting all of Falcon 9’s energy into AMOS-17 is preferable to withholding margin for a landing.
With Falcon 9 B1047.2 in an expendable configuration, SpaceX can take a no-holds-barred approach towards delivering Spacecom’s AMOS-17 to the highest orbit possible. The higher the geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) Falcon 9 can launch AMOS-17 to, the faster the satellite can begin serving customers and thus generating revenue for Spacecom. Combined with the fact that more than half of AMOS-17’s massive 6.5-ton mass is chemical propellant, the spacecraft – pending a healthy launch and on-orbit commissioning – could be ready to start serving customers just a month or two after lift-off.
Falcon 9 B1047 will be missed, but the booster’s demise is an understandable cost of SpaceX prioritizing customer Spacecom’s launch experience above the company’s own best interests.
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
