News
SpaceX readies 4th Falcon 9 booster for 10th launch and landing [webcast]
Update: SpaceX has delayed Starlink 4-6 and Falcon 9 B1060’s tenth launch and landing to a backup window scheduled no earlier than (NET) 9:02 pm EST, Tuesday, January 18th (02:04 UTC 19 Jan).
Initially aiming for January 17th, SpaceX pushed the mission to 7:04 pm EST, January 18th for “more favorable weather conditions for liftoff and booster recovery.” A backup window two hours later on the same day was likely selected for similar reasons. Tune in around 8:45 pm EST (01:45 UTC) to watch Falcon 9 B1060’s tenth launch and landing attempt live.
Four days after Falcon 9 B1058 became the third SpaceX booster to complete ten orbital-class launches, the company is set to repeat the feat a fourth time.
Unofficially revealed by airspace and maritime safety alerts on January 12th, SpaceX has confirmed plans to launch Starlink 4-6 – another batch of 49 laser-linked V1.5 satellites – no earlier than (NET) 7:26 pm EST, Monday, January 17th (00:26 UTC 18 Jan) from Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A. The same pad supported an identical launch (Starlink 4-5) on January 6th, requiring a brisk 11-day turnaround for a pad that’s all-time record is two Falcon launches in 10 days.
While technically “just” another Starlink launch, the mission will mark the first time two Falcon 9 boosters have launched for the tenth time back to back. On January 13th, Falcon 9 B1058 helped deliver 105 small rideshare satellites to orbit, completing its tenth successful launch and landing in the process. While there are only two other ten-flight boosters to compare against, B1058 crossed the milestone more than a third faster than either of its siblings, launching ten times in 19 months or once every ~59 days for the duration of its life.
When Falcon 9 B1060 lifts off with Starlink 4-6 on January 17th, 2022, it will do so in 18 months (~81 weeks), beating B1058’s days-old record (19 months or ~85 weeks) by about a month. Though there are several younger, less-flown boosters in SpaceX’s current Falcon fleet, none of them appear to be on track to more than marginally beat or match the records about to be set by B1058 and B1060. Based on SpaceX’s twice-achieved 27-day Falcon 9 turnaround record, it might technically be possible for the same booster to complete 10 launches in as few as 270 days (~39 weeks), employees have described those record turnarounds as “a mad rush” – probably not a sustainable pace for the current workforce, in other words.
Nonetheless, even if evidence continues to grow that the current iteration of Falcon Block 5 boosters are unlikely to average more than one launch every 50-60 days over their lives, SpaceX could still theoretically achieve an eyewatering launch cadence. For example, if SpaceX’s current fleet of nine operational Falcon boosters (including one converted Falcon Heavy core) can each achieve an average of one launch every 60 days starting now, SpaceX could feasibly launch more than once per week or ~54 times per year. If SpaceX also converts Falcon Heavy core B1053 into a Falcon 9, damaged Falcon 9 booster B1069 is able to enter the fleet, and the average turnaround time drops to 50 days, that 11-booster fleet could support up to 80 launches per year.
SpaceX’s three Falcon launch pads could theoretically support up to 90 launches per year if every single turnaround was as fast as each pad’s all-time record and no extended downtime was ever needed. In other words, in spite of just how far the Falcon Block 5 design appears to be from CEO Elon Musk’s long-stated dream of daily reuse, a fleet of just 15 Block 5 boosters averaging a conservative 60 days per launch could achieve an annual cadence that would force SpaceX to upgrade its launch pads to go any higher.
With Starship on the horizon, though, it’s no longer clear that SpaceX actually wants to push the Falcon family’s envelope to the point that another round of significant vehicle or pad upgrades are required. Unless Starship suffers catastrophic setbacks causing years of delays, it’s more likely than not that the Falcon family will peak around 60 launches per year (still incredibly impressive) before its likely retirement.
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
