News
SpaceX confirms Starlink launch plans hours before Thursday liftoff
Update: Waiting longer than it ever has before, SpaceX finally confirmed it will attempt to launch Starlink 4-3 less than seven hours before the mission’s planned 6:12 pm EST (23:12 UTC), December 2nd liftoff. SpaceX has yet to publish any additional details or webcast links for the launch but should (in theory) do so within the next few hours.
SpaceX has raised Falcon 9 vertical for a record-breaking Starlink and rideshare mission known as Starlink Group 4 Launch 3 (4-3).
According to Spaceflight Now, Falcon 9 rolled out to SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral LC-40 launch pad and was expected to perform a static fire test as early as Monday, November 29th, briefly firing up the mystery flight-proven booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines to verify the rocket’s health. As of early Wednesday, that static fire has yet to happen, leaving SpaceX just ~36 hours to test the rocket before its current 5:57 pm EST (22:57 UTC), December 2nd launch target.
Despite its name, Starlink 4-3 will be SpaceX’s second Group 4 launch and is scheduled to deliver another 50-52 laser-linked Starlink V1.5 satellites to low Earth orbit. Normally, Starlink 4-3 would be carrying 53 Starlink satellites but SpaceX will instead swap out two or three Starlink satellites for two rideshare payloads from Earth observation company Blacksky.
Starlink 4-3 will be SpaceX’s fifth Starlink rideshare mission and second with Earth imaging satellites from Blacksky after Starlink V1 L9’s successful August 2020 launch. Each weighing around 60 kg (130 lb), Blacksky’s small ‘Gen2’ satellites are designed to capture images of Earth at resolutions of up to 0.9 meters per pixel. If successful, the launch will raise the number of operational Blacksky satellites in orbit from 8 to 10. Another two launches are expected to occur in the next two months for a total of 14 satellites.
Like past Starlink rideshares, SpaceX will likely launch Falcon 9 to a slightly higher orbit than usual – tailored to each customer’s needs. For SXRS-2, Spaceflight says Falcon 9 will deploy all Starlink and rideshare payloads in a (likely circular) 430 km (270 mi) low Earth orbit. In comparison, Falcon 9 deployed Starlink 4-1 in an orbit roughly 340 by 220 km.
For SpaceX, Starlink 4-3 will set at least two major spaceflight records. First, if all goes well, it will be SpaceX’s 27th launch of 2021 – a new record for annual launch cadence. Though CEO Elon Musk originally hoped for 40-48 launches this year, it appears that SpaceX will still manage around 29-31 by the end of December. However, if SpaceX managed to excise the apparent Starlink production gremlins that partly caused its launch cadence to plummet from 20 missions in the first half of 2021 to ~10 in the second half, 2022 could potentially meet Musk’s 2021 expectations.
Additionally, as pointed out by a Teslarati reader, Starlink 4-3 could also see Falcon 9 become the first American rocket in history to successfully complete more than 100 orbital launches in a row, narrowly beating out McDonnell Douglas’ retired Delta II rocket for the title. Earlier this year, many outlets already reported that SpaceX’s May 26th Starlink-28 launch was its 100th consecutive launch. While true in a very literal sense, it ignores SpaceX’s infamous Amos-6 Falcon 9 failure, which occurred well before liftoff but still destroyed both the rocket and payload. Following NASA’s DART mission earlier this month, which was Falcon 9’s unequivocal 100th launch success, Starlink 4-3 will be Falcon 9’s 101st orbital launch since Amos-6.
Only Russia’s R-7 (Soyuz) rockets – the most-launched rocket family in history – have successfully launched more times in a row. Since 1966, Soyuz rockets have launched more than 1900 times and the family has repeatedly completed 100 consecutively successful launches over its decades of operation. Eleven years after its debut, Falcon 9 currently stands at 127 fully successful launches – a lifetime away from matching Soyuz but still well on its way to a thoroughly impressive second place.
Stay tuned for official confirmation from SpaceX of Starlink 4-3’s pending static fire and December 2nd launch date.
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
