News
SpaceX nails second Falcon 9 landing in 48 hours, fairing catch foiled by weather
Just a handful of days after SpaceX’s second-ever successful launch and landing of their upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5, the company has completed the same feat on the opposite side of the United States, debuting the Block 5 rocket with a launch and booster recovery from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB).
The booster in question, Falcon 9 B1048, is the third Block 5 booster to roll off of SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA assembly line and is now the first Block 5 rocket to launch from the company’s California launch facilities. On the opposite coast, SpaceX’s second Block 5 Falcon 9 booster (B1047) completed its own successful launch and landing, lofting the heaviest commercial satellite to ever reach orbit (Telstar 19V).
While weather during camera setup was absolutely spectacular, the predawn launch window meant that no sun was available to force the ever-present VAFB fog back over the ocean. (Pauline Acalin)
Seven months, fourteen launches
Today’s near-flawless predawn mission saw Falcon 9 place 10 Iridium NEXT satellites in a polar Earth orbit, during which the rocket’s Block 5 booster completed the first landing on Just Read The Instructions in nearly ten months and Mr Steven made his first attempt at catching a parasailing Falcon fairing with his massive net and arms upgrades. Those upgrades, tracked tirelessly by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin for the better part of July, took barely a month to go from a clean slate (old arms and net fully uninstalled) to operational, fairing-catching status, an ode to the incredible pace at which SpaceX moves.
Sadly, the vessel’s Iridium-7 fairing catch attempt was sullied from the start by inclement weather – primarily wind shear – that significantly hampered the accuracy of each fairing halve’s parafoil guidance, meaning that Mr Steven’s crew did see the parasailing halves touch down, but too far away to catch them in Mr Steven’s large net. Falcon 9 B1048 had its own difficulties thanks to what engineer and webcast host John Insprucker described as “the worst weather [SpaceX] has ever had” for a Falcon booster landing. Nevertheless, Falcon 9 appeared to stick an off-center but plenty accurate landing aboard drone ship JRTI, although SpaceX technicians are likely going to wish they had the same robotic stage securer located aboard OCISLY on the opposite coast.
-
- Just a hint of fog at liftoff. (SpaceX)
-
- Onboard cameras thankfully came in clutch, providing an absolutely extraordinary view of most phases of launch. (SpaceX)
-
- After MECO and S2 ignition, there were some ethereal plume interaction effects caught on Falcon 9’s onboard cameras. (SpaceX)
-
- Also Earth’s limb from inside B1048’s interstage. (SpaceX)
-
- And more unbelievable plume interaction… (SpaceX)
Just Read The Instructions, on the other hand, was similarly tracked but primarily to verify that nothing was happening – the vessel’s last operational trip to the Pacific Ocean dates back to the first half of October 2017. Since then, SpaceX began a process of intentionally expending Falcon 9 boosters that had already flown once before, choosing to essentially start from scratch with a fresh fleet of highly reliable and reusable Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters rather than recover older versions of the rocket and attempt to refurbish them beyond the scope of their designed lifespans.
The Block 5 design, however, has taken the countless lessons-learned from flying and reflying previous versions of Falcon 9 and rolled them all into one (relatively) final iteration of the ever-changing rocket. With any luck and at least a little more iteration, Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters should be capable of launching anywhere from 10 to 100 times, 10 times with minimal or no refurbishment and 100 times with more regular maintenance, much like high-performance jet aircraft do today.
Looks good, but so many details need to be right. Journey back from hypersonic becomes extremely difficult as velocity increases. Altitude is easy, velocity is hard.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 23, 2018
With three successful launches of new Block 5 boosters now under the new version’s belt, it’s safe to say that the rocket is off to an extremely good start. The most important milestones to watch for over the next several weeks and months will be the first reflight of a recovered Block 5 rocket, the first reuse of a Falcon 9 payload fairing, and then the first third/fourth/fifth/etc. reuse of Block 5 booster. On the horizon, of course, is SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s challenge to launch a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster two times in less than 24 hours, and do so before the end of 2019.
2018: I’m watching a livestream of a rocket sending satellites to orbit and then landing on a droneship in the ocean — while watching the company’s other droneship return to port with a rocket that did the same thing on the opposite side of the country three days ago. pic.twitter.com/wWA8ZCBAeY
— John Kraus (@johnkrausphotos) July 25, 2018
Roughly 3,000 miles to the East, SpaceX’s just-recovered Florida Block 5 booster wrapped up a picture-perfect arrival in Port Canaveral aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You at the exact same time as another Block 5 rocket was launching (and landing) on the opposite coast.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven), check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
