News
SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to launch spy satellites from California next month
The US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) says that SpaceX’s first West Coast launch of 2022 is scheduled no earlier than (NET) 8:37 am PST (16:37 UTC), February 2nd.
Surprisingly, the announcement is identical to a launch target that the US Space Systems Command (SSC) put forth as far back as September 7th, 2021, meaning that the NRO’s NROL-87 mission hasn’t slipped a single day in more than four months. On the same list of upcoming military launches, Falcon Heavy’s USSF-44 mission was targeted for October 9th – now NET March 2022 due to payload issues – and Atlas V’s STP-3 launch – planned for November 22nd – actually launched on December 7th. It’s not common for a modern US military spacecraft to make it more than a few months without significant delays – let alone no delay at all.
NROL-87 will also continue an unprecedented string of SpaceX launches that began in the last month or two of 2021. Aside from being SpaceX’s first West Coast launch this year, NROL-87 is the sixth Falcon 9 launch scheduled in the first five weeks of 2022. Even more significantly, NROL-87 could be SpaceX’s 11th Falcon 9 launch in two months or its 14th launch in three months.
In other words, SpaceX is on track to demonstrate the ability to launch anywhere from 56 to 66 times annually by actually sustaining that cadence for two or even three months in a row. In July 2020, SpaceX completed a new environmental assessment of its two East Coast launch pads with the FAA, revealing plans and permission for as many as 64 Falcon launches per year in 2022 and up to 70 from 2023 onward. However, it’s one thing to claim or plan for 60-70 launches per year but another thing entirely to actually demonstrate the ability to achieve those numbers over multiple months.
Prior to 2021, the most SpaceX had ever launched in a two-month period was eight times at the end of 2020. In 2021, SpaceX managed to launch 20 times in just the first half of the year – demonstrating an annual cadence of 40 launches per year if repeated in H2 2021. However, Starlink satellite production ran into major hurdles as SpaceX grappled with semiconductor shortages and attempted to move from V1.0 to a new V1.5 design. As a result, SpaceX only launched three times in Q3 and skipped July and October entirely.
However, Starlink production appeared to recover in Q4 and SpaceX managed to launch another eight times in the last two months of 2021. More importantly, SpaceX actually launched five times in December 2021 and six times between November 24th and December 21st – less than four weeks. Heading into 2022, SpaceX has shown no signs of slowing down. On January 4th, a statement from the US Space Force implied that SpaceX was aiming for five Falcon 9 launches in the first month of 2022. Two weeks later, SpaceX has completed three Falcon 9 launches and has two more scheduled on January 27th and 29th. NROL-87 will kick off February on the 2nd and, barring delays, could be SpaceX’s 11th launch since December 2nd.
Unofficial manifests suggest that SpaceX has as many as 40 commercial launches tentatively scheduled in 2022, one of which has been completed. In H1 2021, SpaceX further demonstrated the ability to build and launch approximately 1800 Starlink satellites (30 launches worth) in a single year. Of course, issues can and will arise and delays are the norm in spaceflight, so there’s a good chance SpaceX will have slow months where customer and Starlink missions both run into delays. Nonetheless, all evidence currently available suggests that SpaceX could smash its annual launch record (31 in 2021) with anywhere from 40 to 60+ launches in 2022.
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
