News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy rocket on track for early 2023 launch
Two weeks after SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch in three and a half years, the US Space Force says that the rocket is on track to launch again “early next year.”
Immediately before and after Falcon Heavy’s first operational launch for the US Space Force, the Space Systems Command confirmed that the massive SpaceX rocket’s next military launch – USSF-67 – was scheduled no earlier than January 2023. The military also confirmed that USSF-67 would reuse two of the three Falcon Heavy boosters that helped launch USSF-44 on November 1st.
Two weeks later, the US Space Force’s tone hasn’t changed, and the Space Systems Command remains confident that Falcon Heavy is on track to launch USSF-67 less than three months after USSF-44.
Assuming the lack of a schedule change is intentional rather than a matter of not checking with SpaceX or other US stakeholders, no change is a good sign. Since the last time the SSC reported that USSF-67 was on track to launch in January 2023, SpaceX successfully launched its fourth Falcon Heavy rocket. USSF-44 was the company’s first launch directly into a geosynchronous orbit ~36,000 kilometers (~22,300 mi) above Earth’s surface.
SpaceX successfully recovered both of Falcon Heavy’s ‘side cores’ and has likely had enough time to thoroughly inspect each booster and begin the refurbishment process. If data gathered from the launch, landing, or recovered boosters uncovered issues with Falcon Heavy’s performance during USSF-44, USSF-67 would almost certainly be delayed. The chances of a delay are magnified by the fact that USSF-67 can’t launch until two of USSF-44’s Falcon Heavy boosters are refurbished and declared ready for a second flight.
But it appears that even a gap of 40 months between Falcon Heavy launches wasn’t enough to make SpaceX falter – at least after working out some prelaunch kinks. SpaceX accomplished a similar feat – launching two Falcon Heavy rockets in less than three months with one pair of side boosters – on the rocket’s second and third launches in April and June 2019. The mission that reused Flight 2’s side boosters was for the US Air Force, so SpaceX and the military already have direct experience tackling those challenges.
In the three and a half years since, SpaceX has gained a huge amount of experience recovering and refurbishing Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters and slashed its record turnaround (the time between two launches of the same booster) from 74 days to 21 days. SpaceX should thus have no issue turning Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064 and B1065 around for a second launch in January 2023, around 60 to 91 after their debut.
While preparing one Falcon Heavy rocket to launch USSF-67 in January, SpaceX – at least according to customer ViaSat – may also be preparing another Falcon Heavy rocket to launch the first ViaSat-3 satellite the same month. Unlike the US Space Force, which recently shipped [PDF] one of USSF-67’s payloads to Florida, ViaSat has yet to ship its first next-generation satellite to the launch site and says that milestone is scheduled for December 2022. That makes a February or March launch much more likely, but ViaSat recently told shareholders that ViaSat-3 remains on track to launch “in the earliest part of” Q1 2023.
Combined, USSF-67 and ViaSat-3 are scheduled to reuse Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064, B1065, B1052, and B1053. Each will use a brand new center core: B1068 for ViaSat-3 and B1079 for USSF-67, according to Next Spaceflight. Like USSF-44, which was the first time SpaceX intentionally expended a Falcon Heavy booster, both new center cores are expected to be expended.
For several reasons, assembling and preparing Falcon Heavy for launch is significantly more time-consuming than Falcon 9, so there will likely be at least a two, three, or even four-week gap between Falcon Heavy’s next two launches. But as long as USSF-67 and ViaSat-3 are ready to fly during narrow windows in early and late January, it appears that SpaceX could launch two Falcon Heavy rockets in one calendar month.
SpaceX has as many as five Falcon Heavy launches scheduled in 2023 – a stark change after more than three years without a single flight.
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
