News
SpaceX Starlink launch suffers third weather scrub, next attempt Tuesday
Update: Multiple weather constraint violations forced SpaceX to scrub today’s Starlink-12 launch attempt less than half an hour before liftoff, marking the mission’s third weather-related scrub and fourth abort overall since mid-September. As of October 4th, the US Air Force 45th Space Wing predicted a 40% chance of weather violation.
SpaceX’s fifth Starlink-12 launch attempt is scheduled no earlier than 7:29 am EDT (11:29 UTC) on Tuesday, October 6th. The mission-specific T-1 weather forecast predicts a 70% chance of favorable conditions.
On the heels of a rare last-second Falcon 9 launch abort, SpaceX is closing in on its third attempt to launch the 12th batch of operational Starlink satellites.
Scheduled to lift off from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Launch Complex 39A (Pad 39A) no earlier than (NET) 7:51 am EDT (11:51 UTC) on Monday, October 5th, Starlink-12 was originally scheduled to launch in mid-September. Bad weather at the Atlantic Ocean landing zone caused a ten-day delay from September 17th to the 27th, followed by a pad weather delay on the 28th.
After a ULA Delta IV Heavy mission with range priority was scrubbed for the seventh time on September 30th, SpaceX tried to launch Starlink-12 again but suffered an abort – later blamed on a pad sensor – seven seconds before liftoff. Finally, a new Falcon 9 launch with an upgraded GPS III satellite aboard was aborted just two seconds before liftoff on October 2nd. Moved from NET October 3rd to the 5th just prior to GPS III SV04’s separate launch delay, Starlink-12 is now up next.
Interrupting what has otherwise been a much-improved level of launch readiness and schedule reliability for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy’s Block 5 upgrade, this recent string of delays – while mostly the result of weather and ULA’s own NROL-44 launch delays – has even become a concern for CEO Elon Musk. Currently focused on building out SpaceX’s new Starship factory and pushing towards the rocket’s first high-altitude and orbital test flights in Boca Chica, Texas, Musk stated that he would be flying to Cape Canaveral “to review hardware in person” on the week of October 5th.
Musk also says that SpaceX is “doing a broad review of launch site, propulsion, structures, avionics, range, & regulatory constraints” to determine if an apparent goal of “48 launches” in 2021 is feasible.
To be fair to SpaceX, most of the plague of delays suffered by the company in the last month has been caused by a mixture of weather and the range’s preferential treatment of ULA’s “national security” NROL-44 launch. Additionally, of an impressive seven ULA NROL-44 launch attempts between August 26th and September 30th, just a single one was caused by weather – the remaining six a result of a wide variety of technical software and hardware bugs. SpaceX’s Starlink-12 and GPS III SV04 missions have only suffered one technical launch abort each on September 30th and October 2nd.
In other words, short of upgrading Falcon rockets to launch and land in worse weather conditions, most of SpaceX’s delays have been largely out of the company’s control, while ULA’s NROL-44 struggles demonstrate just how much worse things could be. According to an unofficial analysis of 44 Falcon Block 5 launches since May 2018, only four technical launch aborts have been triggered by a booster fault. Pad-caused aborts have been roughly as common, meaning that 1 in roughly 6 to 8 SpaceX launches suffers some kind of abort shortly before liftoff, on average.
Altogether, Falcon Block 5 rockets have been relatively dependable for on-time, on-schedule launches even if SpaceX has struggled with more repeated delays than usual in the last few months. To achieve anywhere close to 48 launches annually, however, major improvements will need to be made, likely including upgrades to whatever is responsible for Falcon 9’s weather constraints. As of October 2020, SpaceX has never launched four times in one month (or four times in the same ~30-day period). To launch 48 times in one year, SpaceX will need to average four launches per month. That, of course, in no way accounts for the possibility that 2020-esque summer weather could functionally cut 4-8+ weeks off of Falcon 9’s annual availability.
Regardless, SpaceX will begin live coverage of the third Starlink-12 launch attempt around 7:35 am EDT (11:35 UTC). Tune in to (hopefully) catch the company’s 17th launch this year.
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
