News
SpaceX delivers largest commercial satellite in kick off of Falcon 9 marathon
SpaceX has successfully completed its 13th launch of 2018, kicking off a marathon of three new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster debuts with the launch of the Telstar 19V communications satellite, potentially breaking the record for the largest commercial satellite ever launched at 7000 kg (15,500 lb).
Despite the heft of its payload and partially thanks to a slightly lower parking orbit for the satellite, Falcon 9 booster B1047 – the second Block 5 booster to roll off the assembly line – managed to successfully land aboard the autonomous spaceport drone ship (ASDS) Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), stationed approximately 650 km (400 mi) off the Florida coast at launch time.
While the booster was unable to maintain a live video feed through its high-speed reentry and Atlantic landing, SpaceX’s cameras on OCISLY managed to reconnect a few seconds after touchdown to show the 50-meter (160-foot) tall rocket safely resting on the drone ship. As the webcast host noted, Falcon 9 Block 5 features a number of prominent upgrades designed to enable levels of reusability and reliability essentially unprecedented in the world of orbital rocketry.
-
- B1047 created an extraordinary ring vortex rainbow as it smashed through Max Q, the point of highest aerodynamic stress on the rocket. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1047 before the launch of Telstar 19V. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1047 before the launch of Telstar 19V. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1047 before the launch of Telstar 19V. (Tom Cross)
Rocket trials
Now more than two months after the first Block 5 booster’s – B1046 – debut in May 2018, the software engineer hosting SpaceX’s Telstar 19V webcast was likely speaking more from a place of experience than of hope. Per CEO Elon Musk’s press call just prior to Block 5’s debut, he noted that SpaceX intended to conduct an extensive analysis of that pathfinder booster, including significant disassembly and perhaps some limited destructive testing of certain critical or high-risk components. Musk didn’t expect B1046 to fly for at least another “couple of months”.
This is critical because SpaceX’s manifest over the next several weeks is fairly aggressive – Iridium-7 is scheduled to lift off from Vandenberg, CA three days from today (July 25th), the next Florida launch is aiming for a static fire next weekend and a launch NET 1:19 am EDT August 2, and the second imminent Florida mission is penciled in for launch NET 11:35 pm EDT August 17. Those rapid-fire Florida launches will push both SpaceX’s pad and drone ship turnaround capabilities to their limits, requiring almost non-stop work to ensure both are available for the next mission in two weeks or less.
-
- SpaceX’s West Coast landing zone is preparing for its debut, currently NET October 6th 2018. (Pauline Acalin/Teslarati)
-
- Falcon 9 B1047 prepped for launch at Pad 40, July 21. (SpaceX)
-
- Prior to liftoff, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are held down by massive “hold-down clamps” at the rocket’s base. Even after engine ignition, those clamps only release once the flight computer decides that the rocket is healthy. (Pauline Acalin)
Not to be (at least relatively) one-upped, SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad – known as SLC-4E – is scheduled to push its own turnaround limits by flying two missions in roughly 40 days, just shy of the current SpaceX record of 36 days between launches. Perhaps more excitingly, that September 4 SAOCOM 1A mission looks like a prime candidate for the debut of SpaceX’s yet-unused Californian landing zone, barely spitting distance from the SLC-4E launch pad.
Still, the question remains: what boosters are going to launch these four missions?
- B1051 is not believed to have left the Hawthorne, CA factory yet, and has been stated by NASA to be reserved for the first uncrewed Crew Dragon mission (DM-1), unlikely to occur before Q4 2018.
- B1050 is currently on-stand in McGregor, TX and is likely to be shipped to a launch pad within a week or two.
- B1049 was almost certainly shipped to Florida to support either of the two upcoming August launches.
- B1048 will launch Iridium-7 on July 25, land on Just Read The Instructions, and likely remain in California for future VAFB missions.
- B1047 just successfully launched Telstar 19V (July 22) and will be brought back to Port Canaveral over the next several days before heading to one of SpaceX’s Florida refurbishment facilities, presumably to prepare for an imminent future launch.
- B1046 is likely disassembled in Hawthorne, CA, unable to support a launch for another few weeks – perhaps it’s nearly ready, however
Three Falcon 9 boosters captured in various states of transport and testing over the last six weeks, two of which are B1047 and B1048. (Teslarati/Tesla Motors Club/Reddit/Facebook)
Put simply, it seems almost impossible for SpaceX to accomplish its ambitious manifest over the next 4-6 weeks without reusing a freshly-recovered Falcon 9 Block 5 booster. B1046 is a possibility, as is B1047 or B1048, although the latter two options would smash SpaceX’s previous record for Falcon booster turnaround (~70 days) by more than half, requiring in a return to shore, refurbishment or nondestructive analysis, and preparation for a static fire in as few as ~14-21 days.
Regardless, B1047’s successful Telstar 19V launch and landing have kicked off what is bound to be an extremely exciting period for SpaceX and its aspirations of highly-reusable rocketry.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
