News
[Update: old photo, not hardware for a new Falcon Heavy] SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch gets closer to reality
Update: The photo of a Falcon Heavy nosecone posted on Instagram on August 30th was actually more than 12 months old, dating back to early preparations for the rocket’s inaugural February 2018 launch. As such, no new hardware has actually been spied arriving in Florida for Falcon Heavy’s second launch, likely sometime in early 2019.
SpaceX’s second-ever Falcon Heavy rocket appears to be entering into the (very) early stages of hardware preparation and integration in anticipation of its second launch, expected to occur as early as December 2018 or January 2019.
The apparent arrival of one of the new rocket’s side booster nosecones at Kennedy Space Center – captured by local NASA engineer Hampton Black (Instagram: @spacecoast_hampton) – is a strong indicator that SpaceX is already gearing up for the production and launch of the next serial Falcon Heavy, this time composed entirely of upgraded Block 5 boosters.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BnGz9UiHbNl/?taken-by=spacecoast_hampton
Of note, the individual transport of a Falcon Heavy nosecone to Kennedy Space Center bucks the trend observed during the transport of the first rocket’s two side boosters, both of which were shipped to Florida with nosecones already installed. Why might SpaceX be shipping a new Falcon Heavy nosecone to Florida separately, rather than atop a Falcon booster? The most obvious explanation happens to be that SpaceX is planning on reusing a flight-proven Falcon 9 Block 5 booster for Falcon Heavy’s next launch, perhaps even a booster already residing in Florida (B1047, B1049, and potentially B1051).
This should come as no surprise at all, given the inherent disruption any dedicated Falcon Heavy booster production – 3X the effort for one launch – would have on single-booster Falcon 9 manufacturing. Thanks to the extraordinary loads placed on FH center boosters, those will likely need to have a separate design dedicated to Falcon Heavy, but statements from CEO Elon Musk after the rocket’s successful February 2018 debut indicate that Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters will be interchangeable as side booster with minimal rework.
-
- Falcon Heavy’s refurbished side core, spotted 8/21/17 in Louisiana by an observant fan. (reddit /u/neauxgeaux)
-
- One of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seen arriving at LC-39A about a month ago. (Reddit /u/MajorRocketScience)
-
- A Falcon Heavy side booster and its nosecone. (Tom Cross)
Inter-booster connection hardware will certainly need to be installed on the outside of any Falcon Heavy-focused Falcon 9 booster, but the only other major hardware modification apparently needed would be the replacement of a booster’s Falcon 9 interstage (wrapped in a black heat-resistant material on Block 5 vehicles) with a Falcon Heavy nosecone.
This is likely why a lone nosecone has been transported to the Cape – it might seem rather premature with Falcon Heavy’s next launch potentially five or more months away, but it’s likely that SpaceX integration engineers and technicians want to physically verify that new procedures work as expect and that the new hardware fit meets SpaceX’s tolerances. Normally, the vast majority of that final integration and verification work would be conducted in situ at the company’s Hawthorne factory, where the Falcon 9 or Heavy booster simply would not ship to McGregor or a launch pad until everything checked out as expected.
It’s entirely possible that this very booster – Falcon 9 B1046 – could be modified for duty as a Falcon Heavy side booster in the near future. August 2018. (Tom Cross)
Rather than shipping a flight-proven Block 5 booster back to Hawthorne or McGregor, SpaceX might instead be able to much more easily ship just the components that need to be swapped out in order to modify a Falcon 9 booster for Falcon Heavy side core duties. If that can, in fact, be done, it should serve to dramatically lower the previously massive work-hour gaps between Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 launches, potentially making Heavy a much more viable and workhorse-esque rocket for SpaceX and the company’s present and prospective customers.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
