News
SpaceX Falcon 9’s next major US Air Force launch slips into early 2020 ahead of busy Q4
According to an August 20th update from the US Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), SpaceX’s next dedicated USAF launch – the third completed GPS III spacecraft – has slipped one month and is now scheduled no earlier than (NET) January 2020.
Known as GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03), SpaceX’s next US military launch will follow just a few months after United Launch Alliance (ULA) is set to launch GPS III SV02, scheduled to lift off at 9am EDT, August 22nd. SpaceX kicked off the lengthy GPS III launch campaign in December 2018, successfully placing the ~3900 kg (8600 lb) communications and geolocation spacecraft into a transfer orbit. The mission also marked SpaceX’s first intentionally expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 launch, a trend that may or may not continue with the company’s next GPS launch.
Known as GPS Block IIIA, SV01-03 are the first three of a batch of 10 spacecraft total, produced by Lockheed Martin for an anticipated cost of roughly $600M apiece. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) expects [PDF] little to no cost savings per unit for Block IIIA’s follow-up, Block IIIF, in which 22 additional GPS III spacecraft will be built to fully upgrade the military’s GPS constellation. GAO estimates that those 22 satellites – likely to also be built by Lockheed Martin – will cost an incredible $12B, or ~$550M apiece.
On the scale of the US military’s woefully inefficient space procurement apparatus, ~$600M per satellite is sadly a pretty good deal. Two equally modern USAF satellite acquisition programs – the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and Space-Based Infrared System constellations – have both surpassed their initial cost estimates by more than a factor of two. Over the entire program, GAO estimates that six AEHF satellites no less than $3 billion each, while SBIRS is in even worse shape with six new satellites expected to cost $3.2 billion apiece.
Meanwhile, the Raytheon-built ‘OCX’ ground systems needed to take advantage of the ~$19B GPS III satellite upgrades has been just as much of an acquisition boondoggle, nearly doubling in cost over the last few years, bringing its final cost to no less than $6.2B after years of delays. All told, completing the upgraded GPS III constellation can be expected to cost a bare minimum of $25B. This cost doesn’t even include launches, but the cost of launching all the spacecraft is – in a rare instance – going to be a small fraction of the overall acquisition, perhaps $3-4B for all 32 satellites.
Regardless of the nightmarish costs and general inefficiency, Lockheed Martin and the USAF continue to slowly march towards initial GPS III operability. August 22nd’s ULA launch and January 2020’s SpaceX launch will take significant steps towards that capability, and will – with any luck – be followed by an additional two Falcon 9 GPS III launches in 2020. Six of ten IIIA satellites have already had launch contracts awarded, five of six of which were awarded to SpaceX.
End-of-year fireworks
GPS III SV03’s slip from December 2019 to January 2020 comes as plans for an ambitious final quarter have begun to take shape for SpaceX. Oddly, SpaceX is currently going through more than two months of downtime between its most recent launch (AMOS-17, August 6th) and its next mission (Starlink 1, NET late October). This will be the longest SpaceX has gone without launching since a catastrophic Falcon 9 failure grounded the company’s launch operations from September 2016 to January 2017.
By all appearances, customers’ payloads just aren’t ready, while SpaceX’s own Starlink constellation team is hard at work updating the satellite design and preparing for two back-to-back launches as early as October and November, potentially placing 120 high-performance satellites in orbit.
Aside from two Starlink launches scheduled in late-October and November, SpaceX has at least six other missions that could potentially launch in Q4 2019.
| Launch | Date (No Earlier Than) |
| Starlink 1 | October 17th |
| Starlink 2 | November 4th |
| Crew Dragon – In-Flight Abort | November 11th |
| ANASIS-II – South Korea | November – TBD |
| JCSat-18/Kacific-1 | November – TBD |
| Cargo Dragon CRS-19 | December 4th |
| Sirius XM-7 (SXM-7) | Q4 2019 – TBD |
| Crew Dragon – Demo-2 | December – TBD |
A lack of updates from Sirius XM and the fact that Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 launch will rely entirely upon the successful completion of its prior In-Flight Abort (IFA) mean that both will very likely slip into 2020. The remaining six launches, however, have a very decent chance of launching in 2019, assuming everything goes perfectly during satellite, Falcon 9, and launch pad pre-flight preparations.
SpaceX has successfully completed six launches in three months several times before, so six launches in Q4 2019 is entirely achievable, even if a pragmatist would do well to expect additional delays into 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
