News
SpaceX Falcon 9 booster nails record fourth launch and landing during Starlink-1
For the first time ever, SpaceX has successfully launched and landed the same Falcon 9 booster on four separate orbital-class missions, pushing the rocket’s Block 5 upgrade one step closer to realizing its ambitious design goals.
After an unprecedented lull of more than three months between launches, SpaceX has successfully returned to flight with its internal Starlink-1 mission, simultaneously crossing off multiple rocket reusability milestones. In terms of value added, Falcon 9 booster B1048’s reflight was the most important non-satellite achievement of the mission.
Impressively, B1048 has now successfully launched and landed on four separate occasions, a first for all Falcon 9 or Heavy boosters. Some nine minutes after lifting off from Cape Canaveral, Florida’s LC-40 launch pad, B1048 came to a gentle, near-bullseye halt aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), stationed some 630 km (340 mi) northeast of the Florida coast.
With the successful completion of Starlink-1, B1048 alone has now collectively supported the launch of more than 35 metric tons (77,000 lb) into Earth orbit, as well as the first attempted (but sadly unsuccessful) commercial Moon landing attempt as part of its third launch in February 2019. This particular tidbit is noteworthy because it likely makes B1048 the first Falcon 9 booster to help orbit more than twice the payload mass it would otherwise be capable of launching in a single mission, an impressive reminder of the game-changing success of SpaceX’s reusable rocketry development.
Even then, B1049 is likely close on B1048’s heels – if not already ahead of the booster – in terms of the mass of satellites it has singlehandedly helped to place in orbit.
Aside from Falcon 9 B1048’s historic fourth launch and landing, Starlink-1 also marked the first time SpaceX has launched a flight-proven payload fairing, a huge step towards ensuring that nearly all future Falcon launches are up to 80% flight-proven and 80% reusable. Starlink-1’s payload fairing previously flew on Falcon Heavy Block 5’s Arabsat 6A launch debut back in April 2019, essentially a worst-case scenario for fairing reuse.
That successful reuse in spite of the fairing’s exceptionally extreme launch and recovery conditions suggests that almost any fairing recovered in the future will capable of at least one reuse, be it on internal Starlink missions if not customer launches. CEO Elon Musk has previously indicated that Falcon 9 (and Heavy) fairings represent approximately 10% of the cost of Falcon 9 launches, meaning that each set of halves has a price tag of roughly $6 million. Additionally, it’s believed that Falcon fairing production has some of the longest lead-time aspects of any aspect of SpaceX rocket manufacturing, to the point that fairings could easily become a bottleneck for launch cadence without expensive production facility upgrades.
Instead, SpaceX may have chosen to spend a similar amount of time and money making Falcon fairings routinely recoverable and reusable. That program crossed a turning point in June and August 2019, when fairing recovery ship GO Ms. Tree (formerly Mr. Steven) successfully caught two fairing halves in a row, unequivocally proving that the challenging catches are repeatable. Three months later, November 11th’s Starlink-1 launch has also proven that fairings can be reused even without a successful catch, meaning that it will likely be far easier and far more viable to reuse fairings that have been saved from ocean baths.
Unfortunately, SpaceX had to call off an attempted dual recovery of both fairing halves and GO Ms. Chief’s first operational catch attempt due to high seas in the recovery area. Prior to her remaining, similar sea conditions destroyed and broke off two of Mr. Steven’s arms while traveling to the recovery area, and SpaceX has clearly learned from that experience.
SpaceX’s Starlink-1 launch webcast can be watched in full at the link below.
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
