News
SpaceX wraps up a decade of reusable rocketry with fastest booster recovery yet
SpaceX has completed its 13th and final launch and landing of the year and decade, marked by a Falcon 9 booster’s successful return to Port Canaveral and subsequent processing to prepare it for another orbital-class mission.
Over the course of that recovery, SpaceX broke the record for the fastest Falcon 9 processing by several hours, a small but significant step towards the company’s ultimate goal of launching and landing the same Falcon 9 booster in less than 24 hours. Additionally, SpaceX appears to have finished processing booster B1056 on December 21st, the 4th anniversary of Falcon 9’s first successful landing after an orbital-class launch.
Since that first success on December 21st, 2015, SpaceX has rapidly moved through several distinct iterations of Falcon hardware, constantly improving components, systems, and the overall fit, finish, and reliability of the rocket. Over the last four years, SpaceX has landed an incredible 47 Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters as part of 60 orbital-class launches, while the company recently launched Falcon 9 B1048 for the fourth time and flew the same two Falcon Heavy boosters in April and June. Ultimately, 2019 has been a spectacularly successful year for SpaceX, and – by the numbers – 2020 is set to be several times more ambitious, still.
On December 20th, less than a day after arriving in Port Canaveral, SpaceX technicians began the process of retracting Falcon 9 booster B1056’s four deployed landing legs. As it turns out, B1056 – returning to port for the second time after its third launch – became the first Falcon 9 booster to have all of its landing legs successfully (and semi-permanently) retracted in May 2019. To accomplish the feat, SpaceX designed a custom retraction mechanism that simultaneously serves as the crane jig used to lift the booster while vertical.
“The crux of the need for a relatively complex crane-and-jig method of leg retraction rests on SpaceX’s landing leg design. Put simply, after rapidly deploying with a combination of gravity and hydraulics, Falcon 9 landing legs have no built-in way to return to their stowed state. Each of the four legs are quite large, weighing around 600 kg (1300 lb) and stretching about 10m (33 ft) from hinge to tip. They use an intricate telescoping carbon fiber deployment mechanism to give them legs enough strength to stand up to the stresses of Falcon 9 booster landings.
Combined, the legs’ size and telescoping mechanism makes the addition of an onboard retraction mechanism impractical. All the needed hardware would struggle to find a good place for installation and would quite literally be dead weight during launches and landings, stealing from Falcon 9/Heavy payload capacity and generally serving no purpose until a booster has been lifted off the ground with a giant crane.”
Teslarati — May 7th, 2019
Impressively, SpaceX took less than an hour and a half to successfully retract all four of thrice-flown Falcon 9 B1056’s also thrice-flown landing legs. Less than three hours after the rocket’s legs were snugly retracted, SpaceX immediately attached a second crane and brought the booster horizontal. Altogether, this made Falcon 9 B1056’s third recovery the fastest SpaceX has ever performed by 3-6 hours – seemingly small progress but still no mean feat.
SpaceX’s fastest-ever Falcon 9 recovery – from the drone ship berthing to the booster departing the port on a transporter – occurred with B1049 after its third launch and landing, taking just 2.01 days (48.25 hours). Falcon 9 B1056’s third recovery appears to have beaten that record by at least several hours, brought horizontal and installed on a SpaceX transporter perhaps less than 1.75 days (42 hours) after arriving in port – more than 10% faster than B1049’s previous record.
Meanwhile, SpaceX lifted a fairing half recovered off the surface of the Atlantic Ocean by GO Ms. Tree, appearing unharmed after having potentially been dropped when the ship’s secondary (fairing) fishing net tore while moving the Falcon 9 hardware.
With any luck, that fairing half will be in good enough shape to be reused on a future Starlink mission, seemingly unlikely but proven to be well within the realm of possibility after SpaceX’s very first fairing reuse involved two halves recovered off the ocean surface after Falcon Heavy Block 5’s April 2019 debut. B1056, however, is all but guaranteed to fly again – this time on its fourth launch – in the near future. SpaceX has dozens of launches planned in 2020, so there will be plenty of opportunities.
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
