News
SpaceX loses record-breaking rocket booster after sixth successful Starlink launch
SpaceX has suffered its second rocket landing failure of 2020 despite the fact that both lost Falcon 9 boosters successfully launched 60 Starlink satellites, an anomaly that CEO Elon Musk says will need a “thorough investigation”.
After a rare last-second launch abort on March 15th and a three-day range-related delay, Falcon 9 booster B1048 lifted off with 60 upgraded Starlink v1.0 satellites on its fifth orbital-class mission. At least for the first two and half minutes, the booster performed precisely as intended, carrying a fueled upper stage and its ~16 metric ton (36,000 lb) payload to an altitude of 55 km (34 mi) and a velocity of 1.8 km/s (1.1 mi/s). However, about 10 seconds before the booster reached main engine cut-off (MECO) and stage separation, something went wrong.
While there is some ambiguity in his response, according to Musk, at least one of Falcon 9 B1048’s nine Merlin 1D engines performed an early shutdown before MECO. The rocket’s computer immediately accounted for the anomaly, extending the remaining eight-engine booster burn 5-7 seconds beyond the nominal timeline to ensure mission success. While the booster’s loss is still disappointing and the premature engine shutdown more than a little concerning, it’s critical to remember that mission success was ensured. Just 15 minutes after liftoff, the rocket’s upper stage successfully spun up and deployed another 60 Starlink satellites, bringing SpaceX’s operational constellation to an incredible ~350 satellites.
Based on live views available from SpaceX’s launch webcast, it appears that Falcon 9’s “early engine shutdown” is more of a euphemism for a fairly violent engine failure that triggered an instantaneous cutoff, preventing damage elsewhere. While SpaceX would certainly rather avoid in-flight engine failures, Falcon 9’s nine Merlin 1D booster engines are installed inside an aluminum ‘octaweb’ structure that transmits their thrust to the rest of the rocket but also effectively quarantines each engine in a blast-proof bunker.
Nevertheless, the rocket’s highly-attuned software and affected octaweb engine bunker did their jobs, instantly shutting the failing engine down while also preventing the explosion and resulting shrapnel from damaging the rest of the rocket. More likely than not, B1048’s autonomous decision to always put mission success before booster recovery lead the booster to expend a majority of the propellant needed for its landing attempt to make up for the 10 or so seconds operating at only ~89% thrust.
As a result, B1048 may have simultaneous subjected itself to a much more extreme atmospheric reentry and run out of propellant before it could complete (or maybe even start) its drone ship landing burn. There’s also a chance that the engine that failed was one of the three engines required for reentry and landing burns, an asymmetry that would be impossible to overcome on the fly. Ultimately, the booster likely impacted the ocean at a near-supersonic velocity, smashing it into aluminum confetti. Thankfully, the late B1048 had a record-breakingly productive career as an orbital-class booster, placing dozens of tons of payload into orbit over five successful launches. Its loss is regrettable but the booster has more than earned its keep.
Aside from two twice-flown Falcon Heavy Block 5 side boosters of unknown status and 2-3 new boosters assigned to critical NASA and US Air Force missions, SpaceX’s fleet is now down to just three flightworthy Falcon 9 boosters. This could dramatically limit its options for near-term commercial flights, as none of those rockets – even assuming flawless launch and landing debuts – will likely be ready for their first reuses until May or June. Meanwhile, B1051 and B1049 have three and four missions under their respective belt and both completed their last launches just 50-70 days ago, while B1059 flew for the second time just two weeks ago. Despite the fact that it successfully completed its fifth mission, B1048’s in-flight engine failure will almost certainly delay upcoming launches, although the degree of those delays is up for debate.
Up next for SpaceX is SAOCOM 1B, an Argentinian radar satellite set to become the first payload launched into a polar orbit from the US East Coast in half a century. Before B1048’s anomaly, the mission was scheduled to launch no earlier than March 30th and could use any of unassigned boosters described above
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
