News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket celebrates 4th launch debut anniversary
On the fourth anniversary of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy launch debut and after an unusual multi-year hiatus, the world’s most powerful operational rocket could be on the brink of an impressive salvo of launches.
Four years ago yesterday, on February 6th, 2018, Falcon Heavy lifted off from NASA’s historic Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Pad 39A launch complex, launched a truly esoteric payload into interplanetary space, and officially became the largest, heaviest, and most powerful active launch vehicle in the world. It also became the third most powerful liquid rocket ever launched, placing SpaceX squarely at the table alongside the likes of NASA’s Saturn V Moon rocket and the Soviet Union’s ill-fated N-1 and Energia.
14 months later, an upgraded “Block 5” version of Falcon Heavy aced two more back-to-back launches in April and June 2019, completing its first missions for paying customers and also aiding the US Air Force in its efforts to certify the capable rocket for high-value military launches. However, such an auspicious beginning made the years of inactivity that immediately followed Falcon Heavy’s third launch even more striking.
Since Falcon Heavy’s late-June 2019 launch of the USAF’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission, the rocket hasn’t launched once. That wasn’t supposed to be the case. As of June 2018, SpaceX was supposed to launch the US Air Force’s AFSPC-52 (now USSF-52) mission in September 2020. In June 2019, Spaceflight Now reported that USSF-44 – not USSF-52 – would be SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch and was expected no earlier than (NET) “late 2020.” By September 2020, USSF-44 was expected to launch in February 2021. By February 2021, the US military stated that USSF-44 was scheduled to launch NET October 2021. By October 2021, the US military had once again delayed USSF-44 to early 2022 and USSF-52 to “Q2 2022.”
While the military has done little more than acknowledge each new date, it has vaguely implied that the spacecraft – not SpaceX – are to blame for the chronic, prolonged delays. Without even a hint of an explanation, it’s unclear if those delays are likely to end anytime soon, potentially delaying USSF-44 and USSF-52 into the second half or last quarter of 2022 and pushing USSF-67 into 2023. Thankfully, unreliable US military payloads aren’t the only Falcon Heavy missions scheduled this year.
At a minimum, SpaceX is contracted to launch the ViaSat’s first of three next-generation ViaSat-3 communications satellite directly to geostationary orbit (GEO). The launch was recently delayed from Q2 to the end of Q3 2022. SpaceX is also scheduled to launch NASA’s Psyche mission – a spacecraft designed to visit and study an asteroid made almost entirely out of metal – NET August 2022. While customer Inmarsat has yet to finalize or announce a contract decision, Falcon Heavy could potentially be tasked with launching the second Inmarsat-6 geostationary communications satellite sometime later this year.
All told, if every customer is able to stem each torrent of delays, Falcon Heavy could feasibly launch five or even six times in 2022. More conservatively, if USSF-67 and ViaSat-3 are delayed to 2023 and Inmarsat-6 F2 goes to Falcon 9, the world’s largest operational rocket could still launch three times in 2022 and still have up to three more launches scheduled next year.
For now, Falcon Heavy’s first launch in at least 33 months and fourth launch overall isn’t expected until March 2022 at the earliest.
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
