News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy testing delayed after government shutdown
As the U.S. Senate’s majority party searches for ten additional votes in order to end a federal government shutdown that began late Saturday, all “non-essential” activities at the country’s numerous government-operated space launch facilities have ground to an immediate halt and will remain in limbo until a funding bill compromise is hammered out.
While SpaceX is a wholly private space launch company, it relies almost unilaterally upon launch support and range expertise provided by NASA and the US Air Force, both in Cape Canaveral, FL and Vandenberg, CA. Sadly, the Air Force personnel SpaceX depend upon to conduct launches, static fires, and other ignition tests at its launch pads are not considered “essential” under regulations that prevent the federal government from coming to a complete halt in the event of a funding-related shutdown.
Unfortunately, a budget agreement wasn't reached, resulting in a gov't shutdown. This will unfortunately disrupt the lives and operations here at Patrick AFB. Go to https://t.co/yvmNBH1LMy for info on the current shutdown, impact on base resources, & financial resource options.
— Space Launch Delta 45 (@SLDelta45) January 20, 2018
SpaceX did appear to complete the most thorough round of Falcon Heavy testing yet late Saturday evening, the US Senate’s failure to either pass a continuing resolution or a new funding bill for the fiscal year led to a complete federal government shutdown soon after. As a result, nearly all of the US Air Force’s 45th Space Wing – a crucial backbone of East coast range and launch operations – was furloughed indefinitely, pending new funding from Congress. SpaceX had previously requested a new static fire date for Falcon Heavy on Monday, January 22 (today), a date that is now clearly going to move right for at least as long as the government lacks funding for basic launch operations.
Thankfully, activities like the extensive propellant loading tests that occurred on Saturday night do not technically require range support, so long as no engine ignition or static fire components are included. In the event of a catastrophic failure, the government-run range would be tasked with ensuring the safety of those in the vicinity and coordinating the emergency response that would immediately follow. This policy is brought somewhat into question by the failure of Amos-6 – although that Falcon 9 was being prepared for a static fire test, its highly-destructive failure is understood to have occurred at least five or more minutes before the planned point of ignition. Nevertheless, SpaceX will be able to continue some level of testing with Falcon Heavy, if needed.
Elsewhere, instability
While SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy has undoubtedly garnered magnitudes more eyeballs than the company’s Falcon 9 activities, the government shutdown could be far more consequential for SpaceX’s customers if it cannot be halted within a handful of days. A federal shutdown lasting several days is a hugely disruptive and damaging event on its own, lack of range support on the East coast could quickly begin to eat into SpaceX’s GovSat-1 preparations, the launch of which is targeting NET late January/January 30. For GovSat-1’s flight-proven booster, a static fire at the launch site is unlikely to be bypassed (SpaceX has never skipped a prelaunch static fire), and would typically occur no fewer than four or five days before launch. As a result, in the somewhat unlikely event that the shutdown stretches beyond the next several days, SpaceX customers SES and GovSat could see their launch delayed, an event that would likely bring financial consequences to the public-private satellite venture.
Looking slightly farther into the future, SpaceX’s flight-proven launch of PAZ and two of its own prototype communications satellites is just about two weeks away from its own static fire test, this time at the West Coast’s Vandenberg Air Force Base. Such an extended shutdown would be utterly unprecedented, but if 2017 and 2018 have done anything at all, they’ve tempered tendencies towards knee-jerk claims of “that’ll never happen!”
-
- A panorama of LC-39A in November 2017. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
-
- SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch complex, SLC-4E, depends upon an Air Force range to operate. (SpaceX)
-
- LC-40, located in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, is SpaceX’s second pad. (Tom Cross)
Here’s to hoping that Congress can get their act together and return to those they represent the bare minimum of federal stability, for both federal employees and those that depend upon them.
Update: After a solid two days of shutdown, the Senate has apparently reached an agreement to pass a continuing resolution that will maintain funding for another three weeks, after which a new FY2018 budget must be passed to avoid another shutdown. While this thankfully means that the impact to the Space Coast and the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing should be relatively small, I have left my above thoughts on the potential impacts of a longer shutdown untouched for posterity.
Senate has voted on an amended bill to fund U.S. government for 3 weeks. Bill now heads back to the House for debate & vote. If it passes the House without changes, the President then needs to sign it into law. Once all those things happen, the government reopens. Then… 1/2
— Chris G (@ChrisG_SpX) January 22, 2018
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
