News
SpaceX hit by back to back Falcon 9 and Starship rocket delays
SpaceX has been hit by multiple back-to-back Falcon 9 launch and Starship test delays in a period of a few days, ending the company’s second attempt at a potentially record-breaking month.
Originally scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) June 22nd, give or take, SpaceX’s own Starlink-9 satellite mission kicked off the misfortune and has suffered the most. After SpaceX announced an indefinite delay on July 11th to allow for “more time for checkouts”, Starlink-9 is not expected to launch for several more days at best. On July 13th, SpaceX announced that another summer mission targeting a NET July 14th launch had also been delayed indefinitely to allow teams to inspect the Falcon 9 rocket’s upper stage and potentially replace hardware.
Those two delays have had follow-on effects on subsequent launches planned in late July and early August but the actual end-results will be hard to determine until SpaceX has settled on alternate launch dates for Starlink-9 and ANASIS II. Meanwhile, all throughout those orbital-class launch delays, the first Raptor engine test with SpaceX’s fifth full-scale Starship has been consistently delayed and is now expected no earlier than this week (roughly July 15-19). The swath of delays have been so pronounced and oddly simultaneous that CEO Elon Musk even weighed in on Twitter yesterday, shedding a bit of light on the situation.
On July 13th, in response to a Spaceflight Now article detailing a few of those setbacks, Musk revealed that SpaceX is “being extra paranoid” – presumably the cause of most of the recent delays. Per Musk, “maximizing [the] probability of [a] successful launch is paramount” to SpaceX – not exactly a shocking revelation but still good to hear. Over the last six or so weeks, SpaceX has attempted to substantially ramp its launch cadence, targeting an unprecedented four launches in June 2020.
Delays reared their head, however, beginning with Starlink-9 around the last week of the month. SpaceX simply carried its four-launch-month ambitions into July, although that goal has already been pushed out of reach before the first launch of the month. As of July 1st, SpaceX has completed 11 launches in 2020 and has at least another 16 within tentative launch targets in the second half of the year. To complete all 16, the company would have to average almost three launches per month for the rest of 2020, a cadence it’s only managed to sustain for two or so months at a time.
Before ANASIS II’s indefinite delay was announced, Falcon 9 booster B1058 was on track to smash the world record for the fastest turnaround of an orbital class rocket, beating NASA’s Space Shuttle by ~20% (9 days). Somewhat ironically, some concerns surrounding the unflown upper stage have triggered said delay, while the record-breaking B1058 booster was apparently ready for launch. Like Starlink-9, ANASIS II’s delay is indefinite, meaning that it could last just a few days or stretch weeks into the future. If SpaceX manages to turn around for a second launch attempt before July 26th, though, B1058 still has a shot at becoming the world’s most rapidly reusable orbital-class rocket.
Meanwhile, Starship SN5 has been slowly wading through delay after delay as SpaceX’s South Texas team prepares the rocket for its first wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) with live propellant and its first Raptor engine ignition tests (i.e. static fires). As few as a few days after that test is complete, SpaceX wants to launch the massive steel rocket on the first full-scale hop test, potentially reaching 150m (500 ft) or higher before attempting to land nearby.
Prior to numerous delays, Starship SN5’s first static fire was expected to occur as early as late June or early July. As of now, SpaceX appears to be targeting the first wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with live methane and oxygen propellant (a precursor to any flight test) no earlier than (NET) July 15th to test SN5’s “fuel pump.” If successful, SpaceX would presumably move into static fire operations within a few days, followed another few days later by the first hop test attempt if the static fire was also successful.
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
