News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket could launch a NASA space station to the Moon
According to NASA, a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket (or another commercial heavy-lift launch vehicle) could potentially launch the bulk of a new Moon-orbiting space station in a single go, saving money and reducing risk.
Known as the Gateway, NASA is working to build a tiny space station in an exotic and odd orbit around the Moon. Lacking any clear and pressing purpose, NASA and the Gateway’s proponents have argued that it could serve as a testbed for interplanetary missions, allowing the space agency to figure out how to keep astronauts alive and healthy in deep space. Later, it was proposed as a sort of unwieldy orbital tug and home base for crewed Moon landers, although the Gateway appears to have recently been removed from any plans for mid-2020s Moon landings.
Most likely, the station is being built in order to give NASA’s wildly over-budget, behind-schedule Orion spacecraft and SLS rocket some kind of destination worthy of their gobsmacking $2-3 billion launch cost and $35-40 billion development cost. Regardless, a space station orbiting the Moon – while lacking a clear and present scientific or exploratory reason for its existence – is undeniably cool and exciting and will indeed need to be launched into cislunar space. Previously planned to launch as separate modules that would then rendezvous and dock in at the Moon, NASA has recently decided to switch gears.
As of May 2020, NASA has awarded three critical hardware contracts for Gateway. In 2019, the space agency awarded contracts to Maxar and Northrop Grumman to build the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), respectively. As the name suggests, the PPE will feature an exceptionally large ~50 kW solar array and the most powerful electric thrusters ever flown in space, thus supplying Gateway with electricity and propulsion. HALO is a miniscule habitat module also responsible for life support and providing all other basic necessities for astronauts to live in space, all of which will leave a tiny amount of actual habitable volume for those astronauts to live in.
Most recently, NASA also awarded SpaceX a contract to develop a new Dragon XL spacecraft that will launch on Falcon Heavy and autonomously resupply the lunar space station at least twice, should Gateway actually make it to launch.
The notional plan is to eventually expand the habitable volume of the station from living in a large SUV to something more like a small studio apartment, a bit less than a third as large as the International Space Station (ISS) in a best-case scenario. The ISS is designed to support at least six astronauts simultaneously and has done so for almost two decades, albeit only with the help of resupply missions launched from Earth every 2-3 months. Indeed, the plan is to send up to four astronauts to the Gateway for no more than 90 days a year.
Two birds, one stone; two eggs, one basket
Originally, NASA wanted to launch the PPE and HALO modules – together representing the absolute bare minimum needed to build a functional Gateway – on separate commercial rockets in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Now, according to NASA associate administrator Doug Loverro, the space agency has made the decision to launch both modules simultaneously on the same commercial rocket.
This decision was made in large part because it makes sense from a technical simplicity and overall efficiency standpoint but also because several commercial launch vehicles – either currently operational or soon to be – are set to debut extremely large payload fairings. As a combined payload, the Gateway PPE and HALO modules would be too big for just about any existing launch vehicle, while the tiny handful it might fit in lack the performance needed to send such a heavy payload to the Moon.
Falcon Heavy apparently has the performance needed, as NASA used the rocket and a new stretched fairing developed by SpaceX for military customers as a baseline to determine whether PPE and HALO could launch together. Given that NASA could have technically used any of the vehicles expected to have large payload fairings for that analysis, the explicit use and mention of Falcon Heavy rather strongly suggests that the SpaceX rocket is a front runner for the new combined launch contract. This isn’t exactly surprising, given that the massive rocket has already completed three successful launches and will attempt at least another four missions between now and 2023.
Of the other launch vehicles expected to feature large fairings capable of supporting the combined PPE/HALO payload, ULA’s Vulcan Centaur rocket is scheduled to launch for the first time in July 2021, while Blue Origin’s New Glenn is unlikely to launch before late 2021. Northrop Grumman is also developing the Omega rocket with a large fairing, although it’s unlikely to have the performance needed for the unique Gateway payload. As such, by 2023, Falcon Heavy will almost certainly have a record of launches well out of reach of other prospective PPE/HALO launch competitors. For obvious reasons, putting both modules of a space station on a single launch raises the stakes, making it more critical than ever than risk be reduced where it can be – especially important for launch operations.
Notionally including Gateway’s PPE and HALO, Falcon Heavy now has as many as nine launches on contract (or nearly so) over the next five or so years. It’s extraordinarily unlikely that any of Falcon Heavy’s prospective competitors will be able to get close to the SpaceX rocket’s flight history by 2023, effectively making Falcon Heavy the de facto choice for NASA from an apolitical, technical perspective.
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.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
