News
SpaceX fan spots sooty Falcon 9 Block 5 booster at Kennedy Space Center
On July 2nd, Twitter user Sideralmente (@astroperinaldo) spotted a sooty Falcon 9 Block 5 booster arriving at SpaceX’s Pad 39A hangar facilities, currently operating as a sort of defacto refurbishment hub.
Likely a prelude to a near-term launch, SpaceX has several missions scheduled over the next few months. More likely than not, all of them will fly on flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters, now so common that launching new boosters has started to feel exceedingly rare and unusual. July 2nd’s booster spotting is also a rare (albeit slightly less rare) treat, given the general lack of access (aside from a bus tour) members of the public have to Kennedy Space Center’s operational facilities and the total lack of access they have to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, home of SpaceX’s most active launch pad (LC-40).
CRS-18
Up next for SpaceX is Cargo Dragon CRS-18, the spacecraft’s second International Space Station (ISS) resupply mission this year. At least over the last 2-3 years, SpaceX and NASA have been fairly consistent with Cargo Dragon launches in the winter, late-spring/early-summer, and late-fall (Q1, Q2/Q3, Q4) for an average of three launches annually. 2018/2019 is no different: CRS-16 launched in early-December 2018 and CRS-17 in early-May 2019, while CRS-18 is scheduled to launch NET 7:35 pm ET, July 21st and CRS-19 is targeted for early-December 2019.
Meanwhile, CRS-18 is also expected to be the first time a NASA mission launches on a flight-proven Falcon 9 Block 5 booster, potentially paving the way for NASA’s first launch on a twice-flown Block 5 booster with CRS-19 – hopefully later this year. Of course, that subsequent milestone will depend on a successful launch and landing during CRS-18. Falcon 9 booster B1056 – previously tasked with launching CRS-17 on May 4th, 2019 – is assigned to the mission and has been speedily refurbished for its next mission. Assuming the static fire goes well and there are no anomalies over the next 11 days, B1056 will launch twice in 78 days, a close second to B1048, B1052, and B1053 – all tied for first place at 74 days.
AMOS-17
Following CRS-18, SpaceX’s next launch is expected to occur soon after, launching Spacecom’s AMOS-17 communications satellite on a Falcon 9 (likely flight-proven) no earlier than early-August, although the tail-end of July is also a possibility. This mission will be extremely symbolic, owing to the fact that AMOS-17 is effectively an insurance-funded replacement for AMOS-6, destroyed on September 1st, 2016 when Falcon 9 suffered a catastrophic failure.
Thankfully, since that failure nearly three years ago, Falcon 9 has performed admirably, suffering no publicly-known failures or partial failures during its primary mission, although SpaceX has suffered two failed booster landing attempts over the same period.
It’s possible that the mystery booster spotted above is meant for AMOS-17, although that’s far from certain. Based on an image showing the core number, it is almost certainly B104X, while the second digit could easily be a 7 or a 9. If the booster in question is B1047, the odds are much better that it’s wrapping up refurbishment and waiting at 39A for CRS-18 to launch before heading to LC-40.
Starlink?
On the other hand, if the booster in question is B1049, it can be all but guaranteed that AMOS-17 will not launch on it, the reason being that – quite literally burned by its last experience with Falcon 9 – Spacecom probably doesn’t want to be the first SpaceX customer to launch on a thrice-flown booster. At the same time, SpaceX is probably exceptionally conscious of the need to ensure mission success and has no interest in adding risk to the AMOS-17 mission profile, no matter how minor.
B1049 launched for the third time in support of SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch on May 23rd, known internally as Starlink v0.9. At this point in time, B1046.3 is believed to be assigned to Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort (IFA) test, expected no earlier than Q4 2019. B1048.3’s status is unknown since the rocket successfully completed its third launch in February 2019. With B1049’s newfound history as the first SpaceX booster to launch on a completely internal mission, it would make a lot of sense for SpaceX to reuse B1049 for the next Starlink mission.
Simultaneously, SpaceX could demonstrate the first launch of a thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster without pushing that risk onto customers, opening up B1048 and future thrice-flown boosters for near-term commercial missions. A step further, this would set SpaceX up perfectly to use internal Starlink missions as full-fidelity demonstrations of booster reuse milestones, going from the four launches to five, six, seven, and beyond.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
