News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy to launch Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster into Mars orbit
While it initially appeared to be an Ambien-induced Twitter troll from the famous CEO, Elon Musk has announced that the inaugural launch of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, now aiming for January 2018, will carry his personal cherry red Tesla Roadster as cargo.
Musk’s classic embellishments and hyperbole triggered some understandable skepticism, claiming that the Tesla would head to Mars while playing David Bowie’s “Space Oddity,” and would remain in deep space for “a billion years” if it survived the launch.
Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 2, 2017
While the Mars and “Space Oddity” aspects have yet to be verified, SpaceX’s head of new product introduction, Joy Dunn, subtweeted Musk’s original announcement, assuaging any doubts about the claim’s legitimacy. Much remains unknown, but the information from Dunn and Musk points to a humorous heavy payload being placed into a high Earth orbit, if not on a trajectory to Mars, and will feature plenty of camera coverage in space.
@beeberunner @nextspaceflight oh this is legit and of course there will be cameras!
— Darby Dunn (@RocketJoy) December 2, 2017
In all fairness, sending a Roadster to Mars would be par for the course for Musk and SpaceX, who in a frankly underappreciated turn of events sent a massive wheel of cheese into orbit with the first launch of a Dragon spacecraft.
SpaceX intends to attempt recovery of all three first stages of the first Falcon Heavy, with the two side boosters landing at Cape Canaveral’s LZ-1, and the center core landing aboard the Of Course I Still Love You droneship. The attempted recovery of all three cores would appear to preclude the possibility of a Mars mission, as it is understood that Falcon Heavy’s payload to Mars in its fully reusable configuration would be ~4000kg. Sending a 1500kg Roadster, especially one stripped of its battery, is still within the realm of possibility, but the burden would be on Falcon 9’s second stage to survive the several month long coast period between Earth and Mars.
Elon Musk with a comical grin while sitting in his red Tesla Roadster. (SFGate)
In the meantime, we can speculate with all due haste as to what the first space-faring Tesla Roadster (confirmed to be Roadster 1.0) will carry on its exceptional journey.
One can imagine that the footage garnered along the way would be all the advertising material Tesla could ever possibly need for the indefinite future, particularly for the company’s next generation Roadster.
Many giddy Twitter and Reddit users almost immediately let loose a stream of potential ridiculous slogans: “the first production car to orbit Mars,” “new Tesla Roadster upgrade has a range of 54 million kilometers,” “Fastest production car,” etcetera. Comic relief aside, the sheer shock value of orbital sunrise or even Mars from the cockpit of a Tesla Roadster certainly can’t be denied outright, even if the absurdity is rather high.
Time will tell if SpaceX has chosen to risk a more productive use of Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch, perhaps as soon as next month. While it was later removed at the request of SpaceX, a photo taken Thursday by California-based space journalist Sandy Mazza showed Falcon Heavy’s second stage and all three first stage boosters preparing for launch inside the Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) at LC-39A. The public will almost undoubtedly get its first view of an integrated Falcon Heavy within the next few weeks, certainly before Christmas if things go as planned.
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
