News
SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year
Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.
In December 2018, SpaceX successfully launched the first GPS III spacecraft aboard an expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket, kicking off a launch campaign – shared between SpaceX and ULA – that will likely last until 2023 or 2024. Thus far, ULA has won a single GPS III launch contract, scheduled for July 2019, while SpaceX has won three (with options for two more). Thanks to competition forcefully reintroduced by a 2014 SpaceX lawsuit, the USAF – and thus US taxpayers – are likely saving a minimum of $50M per GPS III launch.
In late 2018, SpaceX’s closer followers were surprised to discover that brand new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1054 – the first to be officially certified for a critical operational military launch – was to be expended, making no attempt to land. This was confusing for several reasons.
“If Falcon 9 [was to be] expended solely because of mission performance requirements, despite the oddly low payload mass (~3800 kg) and comparatively low-energy orbit (~20,000 km), the only possible explanation for no attempted recovery would be the need for Falcon 9’s upper stage to circularize the orbit after a long coast. However, the mission parameters the USAF shopped around for would have placed the GPS III satellite into an elliptical orbit of 1000 km by 20,181 km, an orbit that would almost without a doubt leave Falcon 9 with enough propellant for a drone ship recovery.”
— Teslarati.com, December 2018
As it turns out, there was, in fact, nothing unique about the elliptical, medium-energy orbit GPS III SV01 was placed in. According to external analysis of the Falcon 9 upper stage’s final deorbit activities, SpaceX had “plenty of extra performance available”, objectively indicating that that excess performance was intentionally removed from booster B1054 at the cost of its ability to land. The (unconfirmed) reason for this is quite simple: the US Air Force chose extreme – perhaps even excessive – caution to account for the minute chance that myriad failures might happen mid-launch.
To sacrifice, or not to sacrifice
According to a USAF statement made in mid-May, GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) has been officially classed as “available for launch”, jargon that means the satellite is fully assembled and has successfully completed extensive pre-launch testing. For SpaceX’s inaugural GPS III launch (SV01), a pathfinder that carried unique wait and likely took additional processing time, SpaceX and the USAF took roughly five months to go from shipping the satellite to Florida to going vertical atop Falcon 9. More likely than not, GPS III SV03 has already begun to be prepared for transport from California to Florida, meaning that SV03 is roughly 1-2 months ahead of the schedule SV01 followed ahead of its Falcon 9 launch debut.
So: the GPS III satellite is ready for launch. The next critical milestones will be the satellite’s transport to Florida and SpaceX’s completion of the mission’s USAF-grade Falcon 9. B1054’s technically unnecessary sacrifice thus raises a question for SpaceX’s next GPS III launch, currently scheduled no earlier than December 2018: will another fresh Falcon 9 Block 5 booster be sacrificed to the gods of Obsessively Cautious Margins?
The optimist in me wants to say, “Of course!” With GPS III SV01, SpaceX perfectly demonstrated Falcon 9’s performance and permitted the USAF the luxury of expending a brand new Falcon 9 booster to satisfy the customer’s desire for extremely cautious margins. The Falcon 9 upper stage’s luxuriously expensive (in terms of delta V) deorbit burns – performed after a several-hour cost in orbit – served as another definitive demonstration of the rocket’s intentionally underutilized performance. Having demonstrated a flawless launch with margins on margins, it seems reasonable that the US Air Force would permit SpaceX the freedom to recover Falcon 9 B105x after launching GPS III SV03.
On the other hand, the USAF and Department of Defense are not exactly known for their rational, evidence-based strategies of decision-making and procurement. As such, it’s safe to say that – without official info from SpaceX or the USAF – the answer to the question of whether SpaceX will need to continue expending valuable boosters for GPS launches is entirely up in the air – call it a 50-50 split.
In the meantime, GPS III SV03’s Falcon 9 booster is likely several months away from shipping off to SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facilities for static fire testing. Up next for SpaceX is a critical Falcon Heavy launch that could secure the rocket’s certification for US military launches, become the first USAF mission to utilize flight-proven SpaceX boosters, and pave the way for the USAF to develop a dedicated certification process for launching on commercially-developed reusable rockets.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
