News
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 set for first expendable launch with USAF satellite
SpaceX’s most significant US Air Force launch contract yet is set to kick off with a (NET) December 18 launch of the first of 10 next-gen GPS satellites, known as GPS III Space Vehicle 1 (SV01). Thus far, SpaceX has won all five competitive GPS III launch contracts offered thus far by the USAF and – depending on Falcon 9’s performance this launch – could win several more.
Aside from contract victories, SpaceX’s first GPS III launch will be marked by yet another first for the company’s May 2018-debuted Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket. This first is not quite as desirable, though: sans landing legs and titanium grid fins, the new Block 5 booster will be expended after launch and will make no attempt to land.
Via @USAirForce: First GPS III satellite, AKA “Vespucci,” encapsulated in fairing on 12/7 ahead of #SpaceX Falcon 9 launch NET 12/18. This is the company’s first GPS mission and is expendable, so there will be no booster recovery.
(📸: @LockheedMartin) pic.twitter.com/5aOWy1tI5k
— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) December 11, 2018
At this point in time, the first official confirmation that Falcon 9 will be flying in an expendable configuration was given in a handful of comments made by Vice President of Launch and Build Reliability Hans Koenigsmann at a Dec. 5 press conference. While focused primarily on the topic at hand (SpaceX’s successful launch of the CRS-16 Cargo Dragon), members of the press managed to squeeze in a few minimally related questions which Hans graciously answered. Speaking about SpaceX’s imminent GPS III launch, Hans noted that,
“GPS is not landing a booster. It doesn’t have the landing hardware, or the majority of the landing hardware. … I looked at the booster yesterday, it’s in great shape and getting integrated in the hangar.
-
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
-
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
-
- GPS III SV01 is encapsulated in Falcon 9’s fairing. (SpaceX)
-
- Spotted by local photographer Tom McCool on November 27th, this 39A-located Falcon 9 booster is the likeliest candidate for the first GPS III launch. (Tom McCool)
Hans also told members of the audience that he believed the expendable profile had stemmed from a customer (i.e. USAF) requirement based on a need for extra performance:
“Regarding GPS not landing, I think this is a customer requirement to have all the performance for the mission. It’s a challenging mission.“
While there was previously some doubt as to whether Falcon 9 was actually incapable of attempting a booster landing after launch, Mr. Koenigsmann’s offhand suggestion that GPS III launches would be “challenging mission[s]” makes it far more likely that the USAF’s given mission profile genuinely demands all of Falcon 9’s performance – not enough propellant will remain for Falcon 9 to attempt recovery. There is, however, still some ambiguity in Hans’ answer.
If Falcon 9 will be expended solely as a consequence of mission performance requirements despite the oddly low payload mass (~3800 kg) and comparatively low-energy orbit (~20,000 km), the only possible explanation for no attempted recovery would be the need for Falcon 9’s upper stage to perform a lengthy second burn after a long coast in orbit. However, the mission parameters the USAF shopped around for would have placed the GPS III satellite into an elliptical orbit of 1000 km by 20,181 km, an orbit that would unequivocally allow Falcon 9 to attempt a drone ship recovery.
-
- Falcon 9 B1047.2 is seen here conducting its second successful drone ship landing. (SpaceX)
-
- In a more perfect world, Falcon 9 would have been responsible for the rainbow. (SpaceX)
-
- Lockheed Martin’s GPS III (SV 01-10) satellite.
-
- A GPS III spacecraft spreads one of its solar array wings. (USAF)
The reasoning behind this is simple: SpaceX routinely recovers Falcon 9 boosters after far more energetic launches. For example, Falcon 9’s November 15th launch placed the 5300 kg Es’hail-2 satellite into an orbit of 200 km by 37,700 km, after which Falcon 9 B1047.2 performed its second successful landing on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You. A prevailing second theory for the expendable mission lies in the Air Force’s notoriously stodgy and sometimes irrational revulsion at the slightest hint of risk or change – to minimize perceived risk, the USAF could have thus demanded that SpaceX expend Falcon 9 regardless of whether it was capable of doing so.
For GPS III SV01, it appears that only time will tell whether the satellite ends up in an orbit that can properly explain the booster’s premature demise. Given that SpaceX has a full four additional GPS III launches currently on the books, it will be a shame to see a veritable fleet of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters tossed into the sea after just a single launch each.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
