News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch contracts reach double digits after latest NASA win
For the third time in seven months, NASA has contracted SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket to launch a high-value scientific spacecraft, raising the number of active contracts for the world’s most powerful rocket into the double digits.
In a twist that has become increasingly unsurprising, a spokesperson from SpaceX competitor United Launch Alliance (ULA) says that the company – the only other competitor for the contract – withdrew its bid because it had no more Atlas V rockets available. ULA announced earlier this year that it had officially stopped selling Atlas V launches, leaving a total of 29 more launches – all already reserved for specific customers – before the rocket is fully retired. Unfortunately for ULA, the Vulcan Centaur rocket it’s been developing to replace Atlas V and Delta IV since 2013 or 2014 is years behind schedule.
Somewhat inexplicably, even though ULA bid Vulcan to launch a high-value NASA payload in Q4 2024 as recently as this year, the company apparently didn’t feel that its next-gen rocket would be ready to launch a different payload in Q2 2024. In response, NASA’s only option to launch the GOES-U geostationary weather satellite was SpaceX’s offering, guaranteeing it the contract when ULA backed out of the competition.
Part of an 18-satellite fleet dating back to the 1970s, GOES-U will be the fourth and (as of now) final satellite in a modern extension of the GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite) program contracted by NASA for NOAA in 2008. In 2013, GOES-T and GOES-U were added to the original GOES-R and GOES-S, nominally resulting in four satellites built by Lockheed Martin for an average of ~$350M each.
ULA or ULA-heritage rockets have launched all 18 GOES satellites to date and there was little reason to believe that wouldn’t continue until the end of the GOES-R series. However, as a result of ULA’s major Vulcan development delays, it appears that the company now finds itself temporarily incapable of competing for launch contracts. That makes it hard to judge whether SpaceX would have won GOES-U without ULA’s withdrawal, though it’s difficult to imagine ULA could have beat Falcon Heavy’s $153M contract price.
In one of the most unequivocal signs of SpaceX’s immense impact on even the launch contracts it lost, ULA’s first two GOES-R-series Atlas V launch contracts were each valued at $261M in 2021 dollars when they were awarded in 2013. In 2019, NASA again awarded ULA a contract to launch GOES-T on an identical Atlas V 541 rocket – but this time for just $177M (2021).
It’s unclear what kind of configuration Falcon Heavy will be in for its April 2024 GOES-U launch. For ULA’s GOES-R and GOES-S launches, Atlas V has delivered each ~5200 kg (~11,500 lb) weather satellite to an “optimized geosynchronous transfer orbit [GTO].” A bit like a middle ground between an elliptical GTO launch and a direct-to-geostationary-orbit (GEO) launch, both missions required Atlas V’s Centaur upper stage to perform three separate burn – and one after a three-hour coast. In theory, Falcon Heavy should be able to easily launch GOES-U to a similar orbit while allowing SpaceX to recover all three boosters, though it’s possible that safety margins will mean the center core is expended.
Regardless, Falcon Heavy continues to more than prove that SpaceX made the right choice by investing significantly more than $500M of its own money to develop the rocket. In 2021 alone, the rocket has secured three NASA launch contracts worth around $660M. In 2020, SpaceX won another ~$120M Falcon Heavy launch contract from NASA. All told, the rocket has now earned the company ten active launch contracts, including four or five in 2022 alone: ViaSat-3, USSF-52, NASA’ Psyche, USSF-67, and perhaps an Inmarsat commsat. In 2023, Falcon Heavy could launch Astrobotic’s first Griffin Moon lander with NASA’s VIPER rover, followed by GOES-U, Europa Clipper, and (though delays are very likely) two parts of NASA’s Gateway lunar space station.
Including USSF-44 (scheduled to launch next month) and assuming Inmarsat’s I-6 F2 commsat ends up on Falcon Heavy, the rocket now has ten launch contracts after winning GOES-U. Additionally, while the program appears to be in limbo, NASA did technically announce plans for SpaceX to launch at least two Dragon XL spacecraft on Falcon Heavy to resupply the lunar Gateway station – a total of 12 missions if those plans turn into tangible contracts.
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.