News
SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch on track for Sunday liftoff
Update: SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch is on track to launch as early as 5:56 pm EST (22:56 UTC), Sunday, January 15th. Tune in below around 5:40 pm EST (22:40 UTC) to watch the potentially spectacular launch live.
If Falcon Heavy does launch shortly after sunset, it could put on a spectacular show, lighting up the twilight skies for hundreds of miles up and down the East Coast.
The fifth Falcon Heavy rolled out of SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A integration hangar on January 9th and went vertical early on January 10th. 12 hours later, it was loaded with ~1500 tons (~3.3 million lbs) of liquid oxygen and kerosene propellant and ignited for about eight seconds. SpaceX uses static fire tests more liberally than most other launch providers to try to ensure that all systems – propulsion included – are cooperating before liftoff.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
At full throttle, Falcon Heavy Block 5’s 27 Merlin 1D engines – nine per Falcon 9-derived booster – can produce 2326 tons (5.13 million lbf) of thrust at sea level, making it the most powerful privately-developed rocket in history. In terms of performance, Falcon Heavy is the fifth most capable rocket ever built and is second only to NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) today. While the records of N1, Saturn V, and Energia still stand, all three were retired decades ago.
As is the norm for a rocket with as little experience as Falcon Heavy, SpaceX conducted the static fire test without the USSF-67 payload installed. Like USSF-44, a virtually identical Falcon Heavy launch with similar payloads that launched on November 1st, 2022, SpaceX needs to roll the USSF-67 rocket back to the hangar for fairing installation. During USSF-44, SpaceX took approximately 110 hours to go from static fire to liftoff.
USSF-67’s static fire occurred about 100-104 hours before its scheduled liftoff, meaning that SpaceX only needs to be about 5% more efficient to be ready to launch on Saturday, January 14th. Assuming Falcon Heavy returns to the hangar and rolls back to the pad about as quickly as USSF-44, the odds of a Saturday launch are decent.
SpaceX’s second direct GEO launch
Like USSF-44, Falcon Heavy will sacrifice one of its three boosters (the center core) to launch USSF-67 directly to a circular geosynchronous orbit ~35,800 kilometers (~22,250 mi) above Earth’s surface. A satellite operating at GSO will never stray from the same region of Earth, making it useful for communications and surveillance. Getting there, however, can be exceptionally difficult.
“To simplify the rocket’s job, most GEO-bound satellites are launched into an elliptical geosynchronous or geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and use their own propulsion to circularize that ellipse.
On a direct-to-GEO launch, the rocket does almost all of the work. After reaching a parking orbit in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Falcon Heavy’s upper stage will complete a second burn to reach GTO. Then, while conducting a complex ballet of thermal management and tank pressure maintenance to prevent all of its cryogenic liquid oxygen (LOx) from boiling into gas and its refined kerosene (RP-1) from freezing into an unusable slush, the upper stage must coast ‘uphill’ for around five or six hours.
During that journey from 300 kilometers to 35,800 kilometers, the upper stage must also survive passes through both of Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts. At apogee, Falcon S2 must reignite its Merlin Vacuum engine for a minute or two to reach a circular GSO. Payload deployment follows soon after and could last anywhere from a few minutes to hours. Finally, to be a dutiful space tenant, Falcon’s upper stage must complete at least one more burn to reach a graveyard orbit a few hundred kilometers above GEO.”
Teslarati.com – November 1st, 2023
The USSF-67 payload is mostly a mystery. Like USSF-44, it will carry a Northrop Grumman LDPE (Long Duration Propulsive EELV) with several unspecified rideshare payloads. LPDE is a transfer vehicle capable of deploying small satellites into customized orbits and hosting payloads for months in space.
The US Space Systems Command says [PDF] that “LDPE provides critical data to inform future Space Force programs” and that “the unique experiments and prototype payloads hosted on LDPE-3A [will] advance warfighting capabilities in the areas of on-orbit threat assessment, space hazard detection, and space domain awareness.”
Stay tuned for updates on USSF-67’s launch schedule and SpaceX’s official webcast.
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
