News
SpaceX, Firefly Aerospace targeting three rocket launches in two days
Update: As is a common occurrence in spaceflight, two of the three planned missions have been delayed or scrubbed. Firefly’s second Alpha launch has slipped to no earlier than (NET) September 12th after an aborted attempt on the 11th, and SpaceX’s Starlink 4-34 mission was pushed from September 11th to September 13th.
SpaceX and Firefly Aerospace are on track to attempt three orbital launches this weekend as the former continues to relentlessly assemble a constellation of Starlink internet satellites and the latter works to secure its first success.
On the heels of 40 successful Falcon 9 launches this year, SpaceX is a few days away from two more Starlink missions that will likely leave the company with more than 3000 working satellites in orbit.
Founded in 2017, 15 years after SpaceX, Firefly Aerospace is almost entirely focused on one near-term goal: the first successful launch of its Alpha rocket.
Firefly’s Alpha rocket lifted off for the first time on September 2nd, 2021. Just moments after launch, a faulty cable caused one of the Alpha first stage’s four Reaver engines to shut down, immediately dooming the attempt. The rocket inexplicably persevered, though, and managed more than two minutes of powered flight before it lost control, became a range safety risk, and was terminated.
More than a year later, Firefly believes it has solved the problems that doomed Alpha Flight 1 and is on the cusp of the rocket’s second launch attempt, which has been scheduled no earlier than (NET) 3pm PST (22:00 UTC) on Sunday, September 11th.
Recently, the second fully stacked Alpha rocket completed a wet dress rehearsal and static fire while installed on Firefly’s Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) SLC-2W pad, confirming its readiness for flight. Measuring 1.8 meters (6 ft) wide and 29.5 meters (~95 ft) tall, Alpha is about half the width and height of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 workhorse, and Firefly estimates that the expendable rocket will be able to launch up to 1.17 tons (~2560 lb) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
That’s several times more performance per launch than competitors like Rocket Lab, Astra Space, and Virgin Orbit, but 14 times less than a partially reusable Falcon 9. At $15 million apiece, however, the rocket’s list price will be 4.5 times less than Falcon 9’s, which could be enough to create a niche for customers that want to spend a bit more to send smaller satellites exactly where they want instead of getting dropped off in the general vicinity as a rideshare payload.
Demonstrating an impressive level of transparency, Firefly will offer a public livestream of Alpha’s second flight in full awareness that it could ultimately broadcast a launch failure for the second time in a row. There are very few instances in the history of spaceflight where a new group’s new rocket successfully reached orbit on its first launch, so it’s a credit to the startup to acknowledge the reality that launch failures are a common extension of the development process, rather than something to hide from the public.
SpaceX knows that reality well. Falcon 1, its first rocket, was about half the size of Firefly’s Alpha and suffered three launch failures in two and half years before finally succeeding on its fourth attempt. More than a magnitude larger, Falcon 9 likely benefitted from SpaceX’s Falcon 1 experience and had a much smoother start to life, though it did eventually experience its own share of failures years after its 2010 debut.
12 years later, Falcon 9 is one of the most successful launch vehicles of all time, and has simultaneously pioneered the commercially viable reuse of orbital-class rockets. Currently on a historic pace of one launch every ~6.2 days in 2022, Falcon 9 recently completed its 146th successful launch in a row and 173rd successful launch overall.
Hopefully continuing those trends, Next Spaceflight reports that Falcon 9 is scheduled to launch two more batches of Starlink satellites at 9:10 pm EDT on Saturday, September 10th, and 10:53 pm EDT on Sunday, September 11th. In addition to several dozen Starlink satellites, the first mission – Starlink 4-2 – is expected to carry a relatively large 1.5-ton (~3300 lb) satellite prototype for space-to-phone communications startup AST SpaceMobile. The second mission, known as Starlink 4-34, should be a dedicated launch of another 53 or 54 Starlink satellites.
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
