News
SpaceX drone ship fleet aces two Falcon 9 booster recoveries in 48 hours
SpaceX’s two-vessel drone ship fleet has successfully returned two boosters from sea to port in the space of just ~40 hours, an impressive feat that simultaneously shed light on a new kind of bottleneck for Falcon launches.
Completed on January 20th and 24th and originally planned as few as 25 hours apart, SpaceX’s back-to-back Starlink-16 and Transporter-1 launches made it clear that drone ship availability could quickly become a constraint as the company eyes increasingly ambitious launch cadence targets. CEO Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX is targeting up to 48 launches in 2021, translating to an average of one launch every 7.5 days.
As it turns out, measured from port departure to port arrival, that target is practically the same as the average amount of time it takes one of SpaceX’s two drone ship landing platforms to complete a booster recovery. Both existing drone ships must be slowly towed to and from the booster landing area, generally involving a minimum round trip of 800 miles (~1300 km) and some five days in transit.
In other words, even given a perfectly optimized schedule in which SpaceX launches missions requiring at-sea recovery every ~180 hours throughout 2021, each mission would have just a handful of days worth of margin before one launch delay would inherently delay another launch. Fundamentally, with a fleet of two drone ships requiring an average of five days of transit time per recovery, SpaceX could theoretically support as many as ~70 booster recoveries annually assuming zero downtime, no launch delays, and mere hours spent at the landing zone before turning around and heading back to port.
To be clear, recovery ship availability is an excellent problem to have, as it implies that SpaceX is fast approaching a rate of launch (and routine rocket landings) unprecedented in the history of commercial spaceflight. Thankfully, SpaceX also has an exceptional track-record of solving hard problems and there remains a great deal of ‘slack’ to be optimized out of its fleet of recovery ships.
That is all to say that removing the fundamental bottlenecks posed by SpaceX’s existing fleet will absolutely require at least one or two new drone ships on top of at least two major oil rig conversion projects in work for Starship. Whether in the form of one or more new converted barges or some kind of faster, self-propelled vessel, it’s safe to say that new ships are virtually guaranteed and likely close at hand unless SpaceX has decided to accept a semi-arbitrary ceiling on annual East Coast launches.
Just one month into 2021, SpaceX’s two drone ships are already being stretched to their operational limits to the point of launch delays. Delayed from January 17th to January 20th, Starlink-16 held up drone ship Just Read The Instruction for several days, resulting in the vessel returning to port on the 24th, just ~60 hours prior to Starlink-17’s original January 27th launch target. With drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) already indisposed at sea to support SpaceX’s January 24th Transporter-1 launch, SpaceX had to move Starlink-17 to January 30th.
After a few days in port for booster processing and maintenance, drone ship JRTI ultimately departed Port Canaveral for Starlink-17 on the evening of the 27th, most likely delaying the launch to Sunday, January 31st. For now, though, Falcon 9 booster B1049 is scheduled to launch for eighth time no earlier than (NET) 7:24 am EST (12:24 UTC), January 30th. Simultaneously, drone ship Of Course I Still Love You will likely need to depart Port Canaveral later this weekend to support Starlink-18, scheduled to launch as soon as 1:19 am EST, February 4th.
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
