News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy goes vertical with Musk’s Tesla as launch nears
After approximately half a decade of concerted and less-than-patient waiting, long-time followers of SpaceX have, for the first time ever, seen SpaceX’s first completed Falcon Heavy rocket roll out to the launch pad and go vertical at the same complex that hosted every single Apollo moon landing, LC-39A.
This is a historic moment in SpaceX’s history, even if it culminates in nothing more than a quiet rollout and roll-back to the historic pad’s integration facilities. For at least several years, it has been a running (lighthearted) joke within the fan community that Falcon Heavy is permanently six months away from launch. Outside of the rocket company’s supporters, however, that fan humor gained a heavier tinge, and Falcon Heavy essentially became the strawman with which SpaceX detractors could ream the company’s greater (and even relatively minor) ambitions as over-promised, unrealistic dreams to one day also become permanently delayed. While seasoned spaceflight journalists rarely partook in the Falcon Heavy bashing, pop journalism and the titans of the global launch industry certainly took advantage of the apparent weakness as the preeminent example of SpaceX’s tendency towards delays. Even SpaceX’s conservative supporters understandably saw the significance when two customers ultimately chose to move their payloads elsewhere due to Falcon Heavy’s relentless delays.
Falcon Heavy went vertical at LC-39A for the first time today! Here’s a few shots (taken through much haze) from Playalinda Beach. pic.twitter.com/gsOL9tAfTN
— John Kraus (@johnkrausphotos) December 28, 2017
However, the reality was rather clear to those that followed the agile launch company and paid attention to the statements of its executive management, including CEO Elon Musk. Ultimately, Falcon Heavy was not a priority and was only ever going to capitalize upon a minority of the satellite launch industry, given the rarity of satellites heavy enough to need the massive vehicle. While Falcon Heavy would undoubtedly be invaluable for SpaceX’s grander ambitions of interplanetary exploration and transport, those ambitions simply did not compare in importance to solving Falcon 9 design and supply chain issues that caused the failures of CRS-7 and Amos-6. Nor were they more crucial than the launch company’s need for a stable cadre of trusting customers, simply upgrading the already-operational Falcon 9, or the perfection of first stage reusability – all of which would explicitly impact the utility of Falcon Heavy.

A panorama of LC-39A from late-November. Falcon Heavy will likely launch from this pad in January 2018. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
SpaceX’s official July 2017 confirmation that Red Dragon had been cancelled further guaranteed that Falcon Heavy would only ever be a niche product, maybe even little more than a symbolic stopgap to fill a tiny industry niche and soothe delay-stricken nerves. SpaceX does have at least a handful of Falcon Heavy customers still hopefully awaiting its operational status, but it is quite clear that the company sees its value most as a method of both reassuring the world that its infamous delays are only temporary, as well as relatively economically fueling the development of a reusable super-heavy launch vehicle, expertise that would inevitably benefit the Mars-focused BFR as it too begins development. At a minimum, it will provide SpaceX’s launch, design, and manufacturing experts a sort of base of knowledge about building and operating rockets with ~30 or more first stage engines – the 2017 iteration of BFR is likely to sport 31. It’s also possible that Falcon Heavy could provide the margins necessary to allow SpaceX to attempt recoveries of Falcon’s second stage, a purely experimental effort that would feed directly into the development of the fully-reusable BFR upper stage the company hopes to build, BFS.
Thus, while Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch may not be explicitly important to SpaceX’s near-term business strategy, it will in almost every way mark one of its first tailor-made steps towards Mars, perhaps both literally and figuratively. Rather humorously, SpaceX (or Elon Musk … probably just Elon Musk) has chosen to replace the boilerplate mass simulator often flown as a payload for inaugural launches of most launch vehicles (Falcon 9 included) with a rather unique mass simulator: Musk’s own first-generation Tesla Roadster. While it has yet to be specified what the specific destination of the second stage and Roadster are, nor what – if any – functional payload is to be included, Musk did suggest that the destination would be a “billion-year Mars orbit.” The nitpick here is hugely significant, as ‘simply’ launching the Roadster into a solar orbit at a similar distance to Mars (still an impressive accomplishment) would be decidedly less impressive than actually injecting the Roadster into orbit around Mars. Pictures released by SpaceX show no additional boost stages attached to the Roadster, so a Martian orbit would require Falcon Heavy’s second stage to coast in deep space for several months while generating enough power to prevent its propellant from freezing and maintain contact with ground control, especially in the rather likely event that SpaceX (and Musk) hope to acquire some rather absurd and iconic images from the inaugural launch and its space travels.
- The first-ever Falcon Heavy (sans payload and fairing) shown inside Pad 39A’s horizontal integration facility (HIF). (SpaceX)
- Elon Musk’s Roadster seen before being encapsulated in Falcon Heavy’s massive payload fairing. Below the Tesla is the payload adapter, which connects it to the rocket. (SpaceX)
- Finally, the fairing is transported vertically to the HIF, where it can be flipped horizontal and attached to its rocket. (Reddit /u/St-Jed-of-Calumet)
History and symbolism aside, it can now be said with utter certainty that Falcon Heavy is very real and is likely to launch very soon. The vehicle’s first-ever integrated rollout to Pad 39A is almost certainly intended only for “fit-checks,” a verification that the pad and brand new vehicle are meshing well together, but it is still the first time in the company’s history that FH visibly exists, and there can be little doubt that the photo opportunity was not taken advantage of. After fit checks are performed, likely over the course of a day or two, Falcon Heavy will be most likely be brought horizontal and rolled back into 39A’s integration facilities, where it will be prepared for its first full-up wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire, possibly including the cautionary removal of the second stage and Roadster payload. Because the vehicle is inherently new, as are many of the upgraded ground systems needed to support it, bugs are highly probable along the road to launch. However, if the first WDR and static fire go precisely as planned, the first launch attempt can be expected to occur about a week later – maybe sooner, maybe later.
All things considered, SpaceX is clearly moving full speed ahead with Falcon Heavy’s launch preparations, and it seems highly probable that the company’s schedule will allow for January launch, even if minor issues mean that multiple WDRs or static fires are required. Elon Musk certainly hedged his bets earlier this summer by aggressively inflating the probability that Falcon Heavy fails on its launch pad, famously stating that a success in his eyes would be the vehicle clearing the pad without destroying LC-39A. In reality, SpaceX would not in a million years haphazardly risk the destruction of Pad 39A, and the company is almost certainly quite confident that the pad is at most marginally at risk of severe damage. One thing that Musk cannot be criticized for is the argument that one way or another, Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch will be a sight to behold. While the payload may indeed be heading to or towards Mars, SpaceX still plans to attempt recovery of all three of Falcon Heavy’s first stages: both side cores are expected to land almost simultaneously at LZ-1’s two landing pads, while the center booster will follow a parabola out into the Atlantic for a landing aboard the droneship Of Course I Still Love You, truly a spectacle to behold regardless of success or failure.
My capture of @SpaceX #FalconHeavy making her #39A debut today. Taken with my Nikon D3300 with 300mm lens from the Canaveral National Seashore Vista 8. I must admit I have enjoyed watching the reactions to seeing it on the pad. My reaction… WHOA @NASASpaceflight @lorengrush pic.twitter.com/fEntFCwCO8
— Julia Bergeron (@julia_bergeron) December 28, 2017
Follow along live on Twitter and Instagram as our launch photographer Tom Cross documents Falcon Heavy’s last steps along its journey to first flight, as well as Falcon 9’s imminent launch of the mysterious Zuma payload, currently NET January 4.
Cover photo courtesy of spaceflight fan and photographer Richard Angle. Follow him on Instagram at @rdanglephoto!
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.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
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.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
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.


