News
SpaceX converts Falcon Heavy booster into Falcon 9
More than two years after the rocket’s last launch, SpaceX appears to have finally decided to give at least one of two surviving Falcon Heavy Block 5 cores a new lease on life as a Falcon 9 booster.
Known as B1052, the Falcon Heavy side core or booster debuted in April 2019 as part of the first flight of the rocket’s Block 5 variant, successfully launching Saudi Arabia’s large Arabsat 6A communications satellite to an almost 90,000 km (56,000 mi) transfer orbit. Following in the footsteps of the first Falcon Heavy, the first Block 5 vehicle repeated its predecessor’s iconic double-landing back at Cape Canaveral. Just 74 days later, both Falcon Heavy Block 5 side boosters B1052 and B1053 launched again, this time supporting the US military’s long-delayed STP-2 rideshare and qualification mission.
Once again, B1052 and B1053 stuck near-simultaneous landings at SpaceX’s Landing Zones. Both missions’ center cores, however, weren’t so lucky. During Arabsat 6A, the first Falcon Heavy Block 5 center core did successfully land but high seas eventually toppled the booster, destroying it and leaving few intact remains. During STP-2, CEO Elon Musk revealed that SpaceX didn’t actually expect to recover the mission’s replacement center core due to the exceptionally hot reentry it would need to survive. As predicted, the center core did not survive, with Musk later reporting that the hot reentry damaged thrust vectoring hardware, causing the rocket to veer off course.
Thankfully, both side boosters aced all four of their collective landings. However, despite previous statements from Musk indicating that Falcon’s new Block 5 design made it fairly easy to convert Falcon first stages between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy side booster configurations, both B1052 and B1053 dropped off the face of the Earth immediately after completing STP-2. Only in September 2021, 27 months later, did one of the two cores finally reappear in public – sans landing legs and grid fins but with a nosecone still installed.
As is now clear, that surprise appearance after years in storage was no coincidence. A bit less than three months later after the mystery Falcon Heavy side booster was spotted rolling down a Kennedy Space Center highway from a Cape Canaveral storage hangar to a new SpaceX facility, one of the two side boosters (B1052) was spotted once again – this time with landing legs and a Falcon 9 interstage installed where a nosecone once sat.
Aside from having clearly been converted into a Falcon 9 booster, former Falcon Heavy side booster B1052 was also mated to a new expendable upper stage – a strong indication of an imminent launch. Word on the ground is that the rocket and transporter were on their way to SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-40 pad for the company’s planned December 18th launch of Turkey’s Turksat 5B communications satellite.
Following SpaceX’s successful NASA IXPE launch on December 9th, the company has two more East Coast launches planned before the end of the year: Turksat 5B NET December 18th and CRS-24 NET December 21st. Several other Falcon 9 boosters (save for B1062, which is probably assigned to CRS-24) are likely available to launch Turksat 5B, so B1052’s assignment – while not implausible – isn’t guaranteed.
Above all else, B1052’s second life as a Falcon 9 is exciting because it means that B1053 probably isn’t far behind it, meaning that SpaceX’s fleet of operational Falcon boosters is about to grow significantly in a short period of time. As of now, that fleet contains eight Falcon 9 boosters that have each completed an average of more than six orbital-class launches. Half have flown nine times. Aside from expanding that fleet by 25%, the reintroduction of B1052 and B1053 will free up SpaceX to retire older boosters like B1049 and B1051, which CEO Elon Musk has said are slower and more expensive to reuse.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
