News
SpaceX Falcon 9 doubleheader still on track after fiery ULA launch abort
As previously reported by Teslarati, SpaceX announced intentions to launch two Falcon 9 missions from two Florida launchpads on Sunday, August 30th. However, the ambitious goal was left in limbo.
The record-breaking doubleheader was believed to hinge upon the Saturday morning launch of a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV Heavy rocket with a classified spy satellite. However, that is apparently no longer the case.
Instead of launching on time, ULA’s infrequently-flown heavy-lift rocket was hit by 72 hours of delays to rectify minor pad hardware bugs. Around 2 am EDT (UTC-4) on August 29th, Delta IV Heavy made it just seconds away from liftoff before the rocket’s autonomous flight computer detected an anomaly with pad hardware and aborted the launch. As a result, the three cores’ three Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-68A engines were forced to shut down after ignition – an uncommon Delta IV launch abort scenario that has historically required at least a week of work to recycle for another launch attempt.
ULA ultimately determined that it was not possible to recycle the countdown for another attempt although enough time remained in the launch window to do so. The launch vehicle was safed and a scrub was announced.
In a statement provided by ULA confirmed that the early shutdown was “due to an unexpected condition during the terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.” ULA also confirmed that “the required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.”
ULA has to fly before SpaceX, right?
With a minimum of seven days required to recycle the ULA Delta IV Heavy for another launch attempt, it was unclear what that meant for the fate of the SpaceX SAOCOM-1B mission.
It was previously understood that in order for SpaceX to launch the SAOCOM-1B mission from nearby Space Launch Complex-40 (SLC-40), the ULA Delta IV Heavy would have to successfully launch first. The southern polar launch trajectory of the SAOCOM-1B’s mission is one that hasn’t been flown from Cape Canaveral, FL in nearly six decades. This particular flightpath includes launch hazard zones that inch ever so close to the launchpad of the Delta IV Heavy, which is currently still on its launchpad stacked with a classified payload for the U.S. government.
It was assumed that the Falcon 9 would suffer the same minimum delay of seven days, if not longer. However, on Saturday afternoon, August 29 a SpaceX media representative confirmed that the company was still targeting the historic double header launches on Sunday, August 30.
Double the launches, double the recoveries
If SpaceX can pull it off, Sunday is set to be a stellar day for Falcon 9 launches and landings. The SAOCOM-1B mission will feature a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) landing attempt of the expended Falcon 9 booster while the Starlink Falcon 9 booster is expected to land aboard the autonomous droneship “Of Course I Still Love You” currently stationed off the coast of South Carolina.
In an unusual move, SpaceX split up the fairing catching vessels. Initially, both vessels left Port Canaveral and headed south to a catch zone located between The Bahamas and Cuba in an attempt to catch both fairing halves of the SAOCOM-1B mission. Then, GO Ms.Tree did an about-turn and met up with the booster recovery vessels off the coast of South Carolina.
At the time of publishing, the two Sunday Falcon 9 launches are expected to occur just nine hours apart. The Starlink V1.0-L11 mission is slated to occur at 10:12am ET (1412 UTC) from Launch Complex 39-A at Kennedy Space Center while the SAOCOM-1B mission is set to launch at 7:18pm ET (2318 UTC) from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. As usual, SpaceX will host official launch webcasts live, typically beginning around 15 minutes before liftoff.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
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
