News
SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket rolls out for first launch of 2023
SpaceX has assembled Falcon Heavy and rolled the rocket out to the launch pad for its first mission of 2023.
This particular Falcon Heavy – the fifth overall – is reusing both of the side boosters recovered from the rocket’s fourth launch. Originally scheduled to launch in late 2020, Falcon Heavy Flight 4 finally lifted off from the NASA Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39A pad on November 1st, 2022. The two-year delay was caused almost exclusively by unspecified issues with one or several of the US Space Force-44 (USSF-44) mission’s payloads, forcing SpaceX to store completed Falcon Heavy boosters for more than a year and a half.
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
Thankfully, despite an unplanned 40-month hiatus between missions, the US Space Force reported that Falcon Heavy’s fourth launch was a “simply outstanding” success. USSF-44 was SpaceX’s first attempt at a direct geosynchronous launch – one of the most difficult missions for rockets that use cryogenic liquid propellant. Falcon Heavy first launched payloads to a highly-elliptical parking orbit (~300 km x ~36,000 km) and then coasted for around six hours in the harsh vacuum of space. Once the Falcon upper stage reached that 36,000-kilometer (~22,250 mi) apogee, all the while fighting to keep its propellant from freezing into slush and boiling into gas, it ignited again to complete a circularization burn – raising the low end of its orbit (perigee) to match the apogee.
The payloads were likely deployed around 6-8 hours after liftoff. To complete such a challenging mission, SpaceX was forced to intentionally sacrifice one of Falcon Heavy’s three potentially reusable boosters. But about eight minutes after liftoff, both of the rocket’s side boosters safely touched down side by side at SpaceX’s LZ-1 and LZ-2 landing zones. Before the launch, military officials had confirmed that those boosters – B1064 and B1065 – were already expected to fly again on Falcon Heavy’s next Space Force launch, USSF-67.
Less than 70 days after their first launch and landing, SpaceX has refurbished B1064 and B1065; attached the boosters to another expendable Falcon Heavy center core and upper stage, and rolled the rocket out to Pad 39A for prelaunch testing. Its payloads and exact launch time are different, but USSF-67 is expected to be virtually identical to USSF-44 – launching directly to GSO with a lightweight collection of miscellaneous experiments and small satellites. The center core will be expended and B1064 and B1065 will attempt another simultaneous landing at LZ-1 and LZ-2.
Like USSF-44, USSF-67’s rocket rolled out for the first time without its cone-like payload fairing installed. Up next, Falcon Heavy will need to complete a wet dress rehearsal and static fire test before SpaceX and the USSF can clear it for flight. SpaceX will then lower the rocket to the ground, return it to the hangar, install the USSF-67 payload, roll the rocket back to the pad, and raise it vertical.
Unofficial but well-sourced public manifests report that SpaceX intends to launch USSF-67 four days from now, shortly before 6 pm EST (23:00 UTC) on Friday, January 13th. SpaceX took five and a half days to complete the same process for USSF-44, so a delay to January 14th or 15th would not be surprising. But at the moment, Friday’s launch attempt is scheduled shortly after sunset, potentially producing the same kind of extraordinary light shows Falcon 9 has become famous for. However, that show would be significantly magnified by Falcon Heavy’s three boosters and twin boostback burns, potentially making it one of the most visually spectacular launches ever.
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
