News
Hawthorne, we have a problem: SpaceX has too many boosters
Over the course of two years of concerted effort, SpaceX has matured its program of reusable rocketry into a truly staggering success. Over the 24 months since SpaceX first successful recovery of a Falcon 9 booster, there have been stumbles as recovery improved, but overall the company has accomplished 20 near-flawless landings of boosters over that period. Perhaps more impressively, following a handful of failed recovery attempts in 2016, SpaceX has successfully recovered 15 boosters without incident, with the vast majority of those attempts occurring in 2017.
2017 has ultimately been the best year yet for the launch company, marked by what will likely be 18 successful missions (after Iridium-4) for Falcon 9, five commercial reuses of flight-proven boosters, the activation of three essentially new launch facilities, and numerous additional accomplishments behind the scenes as the inaugural launches of Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon rapidly approach. The success of reusability is arguably the sticking point here, and that success has meant that SpaceX rapidly accumulated a huge stock of recovered Falcon 9s, often to the extent that Elon Musk sometimes joked about running out of space for boosters.
Falcon 9 1035 conducts its second landing after successfully launching CRS-13 on December 15. (NASA)
While it may not be immediately clear if SpaceX is legitimately running out of space with which to store its fleet of boosters, reports of first stages being mothballed or even scrapped suggest that space may indeed be at a premium, or at least indicate that SpaceX is growing increasingly pragmatic as its reuse expertise expands.
This is to say that while there may be room to store a few additional boosters, the reality is that older Block 3 Falcon 9s were simply not designed with an expectation that they would affordably survive multiple reuses. As such, it should come as little surprise that SpaceX is choosing to expend at least a couple of upcoming launches featuring reused boosters. As of December 19, public information indicates that the West Coast launch of Iridium-4 – scheduled for Dec. 22 – will not attempt first stage recovery. While somewhat sad, the decision is entirely rational, and it appears all but certain that Iridium-4 will at a minimum feature an attempt at fairing recovery aboard the highly-modified recovery vessel Mr. Steven.
Instagram is an invaluable asset for core tracking, with a number of SpaceX-aware individuals reliably tagging their Falcon 9 finds. 1036, the Block 3 booster that launched Iridium-2 and will soon refly with Iridium-4 is pictured above. (Instagram/Luka Hargett)
Public Falcon 9 tracking efforts on forums like Reddit and NASASpaceflight indicate that Block 3 boosters include 1029-1038, all of which debuted with their first launches in 2017, beginning with Iridium-1 in January. Of those ten distinct boosters, only two currently lack any future missions, 1032 and 1038; SpaceX has essentially worked the Block 3 fleet to its end-of-life, and that end will be efficiently sped up by simply expending those final reused boosters if or when they are reflown, Iridium-4 included.
For now, we only use those on super hot reentry missions. Will go to all Ti with Falcon 9 V5, which is a few months away.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2017
Expending those older flight-proven boosters will allow SpaceX to both figuratively and literally replace Falcon 9’s less capable predecessors with Block 4s and eventually Block 5s, both of which are at least marginally more reusable than their predecessors. As reported by Musk himself a few days ago, Falcon 9 Block 5 is expected within a few months. Block 5 has seen considerable modifications made to Falcon 9, and all of those changes are intended to improve ease of reuse: SpaceX’s official goal for the upgrade is to enabled Falcon 9 first stages to be reflown as many as 10 times with little to no refurbishment and a lifespan of 100 flights with significant periodic refurbishment. As a result, it is possible that 2018 might feature a similar period of reused Block 4 launches sans any attempted recoveries.
In the meantime, we can wish the fairing recovery teams the best of luck and mourn several of the pioneers of reusable rocketry. Here’s to hoping that we are treated to a live view of each booster’s demise in homage to their achievements.
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
