News
SpaceX’s next commercial Falcon Heavy launch to carry Astranis rideshare satellite
Geostationary satellite communications startup Astranis has decided to move its first operational satellite launch from a SpaceX Falcon 9 to a Falcon Heavy, effectively securing the massive rocket its first commercial rideshare payload.
While not technically Falcon Heavy’s first rideshare payload and not the rocket’s first commercial rideshare launch contract, Astranis’ first 400 kg (~900 lb) MicroGEO satellite nevertheless appears set to become the first commercial rideshare payload to actually fly on the world’s largest operational rocket. Not all that dissimilar to Starlink in scope and its desire to disrupt a stagnant industry, Astranis wants to offer global communications services providers a different route to geostationary internet and broadcast solutions. Unlike SpaceX’s constellation, the startup’s MicroGEO satellites are designed for geostationary orbits ~36,000 km (~22,200 mi) above Earth’s surface and more than 60 times higher than Starlink.
However, like Starlink satellites, MicroGEO will feature exceptional density (throughput per kilogram), weighing a magnitude less than average modern geostationary communications satellites while still offering up to 10 Gbps of bandwidth. Expected to cost around $40M apiece compared to ~$100M+ for most traditional offerings, the value proposition of small Astranis satellites with 5-10 times less bandwidth admittedly gets a bit blurrier, but the company should still offer a viable alternative for companies and countries that just don’t need a massive satellite.
For example, Astranis’ first customer and the buyer behind the first MicroGEO satellite – known as Aurora 4A – is Pacific Dataport, a company focused on delivering connectivity throughout Alaska – one of the most remote and sparsely populated places on Earth. That combination of attributes makes providing broadband communication services spectacularly difficult and satellite internet the perfect (and, to an extent, the only viable) solution. However, a full $100M+ geostationary communications satellite with 50-100+ Gbps of bandwidth would likely far outweigh the needs of Alaska’s ~730,000 residents – especially when most Alaskans live in the state’s few large cities, most of which already have passable internet connectivity.
As such, it’s easy to see why a small but high-performance geostationary satellite like the kind Astranis offers might be a perfect fit for an Alaskan internet provider. While low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations like OneWeb and SpaceX’s Starlink do offer far more bandwidth and a user experience potentially as good or better than a wired connection almost anywhere on Earth, both companies first have to launch hundreds or thousands of satellites to ensure continuous coverage. Both Starlink and OneWeb are a ways away from offering continuous coverage in polar regions.
Geostationary satellites – especially those as small as Aurora 4A – offer a significant shortcut, requiring just a single satellite and ground stations in one or a few very specific regions to fully complete a communications network. Of course, thanks to universal limits posed by the speed of light, geostationary internet customers end up saddled with extreme latency (ping on the order of 300-1000ms) and strict individual bandwidth limits. But in places like Alaska, where there can easily be no alternative for the most rural residents, Astranis – or just about anything – could bring welcome relief.
Now, Astranis says it has moved the first MicroGEO satellite from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to rideshare payload on Falcon Heavy’s upcoming ViaSat-3 launch, scheduled no earlier than Q2 2022. According to the startup, doing so will allow the tiny satellite to begin operations over Alaska mere days or a few weeks after launch, saving months of orbit-raising thanks to Falcon Heavy’s performance. That’s only possible because, as the Astranis press release also revealed, Falcon Heavy is scheduled to launch the 6.4 ton (~14,100 lb) ViaSat-3 and 400 kg (~900 lb) Aurora 4A satellites directly to geostationary orbit (GEO). If Falcon Heavy’s upcoming USSF-44 mission launches on schedule next month, ViaSat-3 will be SpaceX’s second direct-to-GEO mission ever and the company’s first for a commercial customer.
Assuming SpaceX is still able to recover two – or even all three – of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters while launching almost 7 tons (~15,500 lb) of satellites directly to GEO, it will also demonstrate just how much of a force to be reckoned with it really is, well and truly leaving competitors ULA and Arianespace with nowhere to hide on the open market.
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
