News
SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch in two years is finally coming together
For the first time in more than two years, SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch and dual-booster landing appears to be right around the corner – and it comes with a catch.
In February 2018, after years of anticipation, SpaceX successfully launched its triple-booster Falcon Heavy rocket for the first time in a spectacular show of force. Though the ‘center core’ booster got a little melty on its extremely high-speed reentry and was lost before it could attempt to land, the rocket’s twin side boosters performed an iconic near-simultaneous landing just a handful of miles away from where they lifted off.
Then Falcon Heavy took a good, long break. Ultimately, it would turn out that the debut vehicle was effectively a one-off and over the course of 14 months, SpaceX fairly quickly designed, built, and qualified an entirely new Falcon Heavy rocket based on Falcon 9’s new and improved Block 5 variant. In April 2019, after a few minor delays, that Falcon Heavy Block 5 rocket completed its own launch debut and first mission for a paying customer. This time around, all three boosters – two by land and one by sea – survived reentry and performed flawless landings on a drone ship and two Landing Zones.
A mere two months later, both of Falcon Heavy Block 5’s first two recovered side boosters flew again in support of the US Air Force’s STP-2 mission – a combined demonstration flight and rideshare mostly designed to push the rocket to its limits and help the military qualify it for high-value payloads. Once more, those side boosters successfully returned for a simultaneous landing at SpaceX’s Landing Zones but the mission’s Block 5 center core’s reentry was – as SpaceX itself partially expected – too hot, burning essential components and resulting in a hard ‘landing’ in the Atlantic Ocean. Otherwise, the mission was a spectacular success and gave the US military practically all the data it needed to qualify the world’s largest operational rocket to launch its payloads.
Shockingly, however, that June 2019 launch would end up being Falcon Heavy’s third and latest. In the almost 26 months since, the rocket hasn’t flown once. Originally scheduled to launch a fourth time as early as Q4 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic ultimately delayed the rocket’s next two launches (or gave the satellite manufacturer(s) perfect scapegoats for technical delays) into 2021.
Known as USSF-44 and USSF-52 (formerly AFSPC-44/52), both missions are scheduled to launch ethereal US military spy and/or communications satellites. USSF-44 is arguably the most important, as it will mark SpaceX’s first direct launch to geostationary orbit (GEO) for any customer – let alone one as exacting as the US military. USSF-52 is a much simpler and more traditional launch to an elliptical geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
About a year ago, for unknown reasons, the two missions swapped positions, with USSF-44 taking the lead. Expected to launch in June 2021 as of early this year, SpaceflightNow first reported that USSF-44 had slipped further still to October – and USSF-52 into 2022 – this May. Since then, that’s where the mission’s schedule has tentatively lain.
Finally, on August 12th, SpaceX filed an FCC application for rocket communication permissions. While otherwise ordinary, this particular request stated that it was for Falcon Heavy recovery operations and, more specifically, for the simultaneous recovery of two Falcon Heavy boosters at sea. Out of an abundance of caution and conservatism and combined with the generally challenging nature of direct-to-GEO launches, Falcon Heavy’s first such mission for the US military will require SpaceX to expend the rocket’s center booster and recover both side boosters at sea with two separate drone ships.
Falcon Heavy’s USSF-52 GTO launch isn’t as demanding and its mission profile is expected to allow SpaceX to recover all three boosters. As such, an FCC filing for a dual-drone-ship Falcon Heavy side booster recoveries practically guarantees that it’s for USSF-44. Per the application, SpaceX expects the mission to occur no earlier than September 25th. Almost simultaneously, launch photographer Ben Cooper also updated a long-running list of upcoming East Coast launches, confirming that Falcon Heavy’s fourth launch (USSF-44) remains on track for October 2021.
Ultimately, while delays are possible and likely probable, there now appears to be a strong chance that Falcon Heavy will launch for the first time in 28 months before the end of 2021.
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
