News
SpaceX closes in on Falcon 9 reliability milestone after flawless Monday launch [photos]
SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket has completed its thirteenth launch of 2019, leaving the vehicle just one mission away from a major reliability milestone.
At 7:10 pm ET, December 16th (00:10 UTC, Dec 17), Falcon 9 booster B1056, a new upper stage, and the nearly 7-metric ton (15,500 lb) Kacific-1/JCSAT-18 communications satellite lifted off from SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral LC-40 launch pad. As has more or less become the norm, Falcon 9 sailed through prelaunch preparations, payload integration, and launch with zero notable issues and lifted off at the precise start of a ~90-minute window.
Around nine minutes after launch and 30 seconds after the second stage reached orbit, Falcon 9 B1056 successfully landed aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), completing the booster’s third launch and landing in seven months. 27 minutes after launch, Falcon 9’s second stage reignited and burned for more than 50 seconds, raising one end of its orbit by more than 20,000 km (12,500 mi). Five minutes later, Falcon 9 officially completed its mission by gently releasing Kacific-1/JCSAT-18 from the second stage, where the satellite shortly reoriented itself, deployed ~40-meter (~125 ft) long solar ‘wings’, and began verifying its systems’ health.
Aside from another successful and issue-free launch under the Falcon family’s belt, the Kacific-1 mission is significant for another major reason: it’s Falcon 9’s 49th consecutively-successful launch since January 2017. Falcon 9’s last catastrophic failure occurred on September 1st, 2016 when the rocket’s upper stage violently exploded, destroying the rest of the rocket and its Amos-6 satellite payload.
SpaceX took approximately four months to determine the root cause of that failure and modify hardware and procedures accordingly before returning to flight with the first Iridium NEXT launch on January 14th, 2017. In the three years (35 months) since then, Falcon 9 has successfully launched a total of 49 times in a row without even a partial failure. After one additional launch success, Falcon 9 will have flown 50 consecutively-successful missions, a symbolic but still exceptional sign of the rocket’s excellent reliability. That 50th launch attempt could come as early as December 30th in the form of SpaceX’s third 60-satellite Starlink mission, known as Starlink-2.
Technically speaking, if Falcon Heavy is included, SpaceX has already completed 52 consecutively-successful orbital launches without a single failure (or partial failure), the only company or space agency in the world that can currently claim that feat. Although both Arianespace and ULA are infamous for whitewashing the partial failures of their launch vehicles, Ariane 5 unfortunately suffered a partial failure in January 2018, while ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV suffered their own partial failures in 2007 and 2004, respectively. Atlas V experienced another in-flight anomaly in 2016, although it was not technically classified as a partial failure.
This means that Ariane 5, Delta IV, and Atlas V – still some of the most reliable launch vehicles ever built – have technically only performed 9, 36, and 70 (or 18) consecutively-successful launches since their most recent partial failure (or in-flight anomaly). In other words, if measured in terms of uninterrupted consecutive launch successes, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is either the most reliable or the second most reliable launch vehicle currently in operation.
Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that SpaceX has pulled off that feat of reliability in less than three years, unequivocally making Falcon 9 the best all-purpose launch vehicle in the world in terms of its combined reliability and flight frequency – the latter thanks in large part to the rocket’s exceptionally competitive pricing.
As of now, SpaceX has at least two or three-dozen launches nominally planned for 2020 and if all of those launches are successfully completed, Falcon 9 will almost certainly become the world’s most reliable operational launch vehicle by any measure.
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
