News
SpaceX’s flight-proven Falcon 9 and drone ship fleet ready for duo of launches
SpaceX is gearing up for a duo of flight-proven Falcon 9 launches and drone ship landings on both coasts of the United States, set for liftoff from Cape Canaveral’s Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg Air Force Base no earlier than (NET) November 15th and 19th, respectively.
#SpaceXArmada: Moments ago, outbound tugboat Hawk with droneship OCISLY in tow in @PortCanaveral. Destination: Booster core landing/recovery LZ of Thursday's #Eshail2 launch, approx 408 mi E of @NASAKennedy. pic.twitter.com/n5FvBdIvpt
— Cowboy Dan (@CowboyDanPaasch) November 12, 2018
East Coast activities
On the East Coast, drone ship Of Course I Still Love You departed from Port Canaveral late last night (Nov 11) as Falcon 9 B1047 rolled onto Pad 39A for a preflight static fire test, where the rocket will be filled with a full complement of fluids (TEA/TEB, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, kerosene) and all nine Merlin 1D engines are ignited in order to replicate the seconds just prior to a real launch. That static fire test was originally expected to occur on November 10 or 11 but has obviously been pushed back a day to Nov. 12, likely meaning that the rocket’s launch – carrying Qatari communications satellite Es’hail-2 – will slip 24 hours to 3:46pm EST (08:46 UTC) on the 16th,
Following the unfortunate loss of Amos-6 during a preflight static fire in September 2016, SpaceX has since made a reasonable move away from performing static fires with payloads integrated atop the rocket, unless the customer specifically requests that it be done that way to save time. As such, Falcon 9 must be brought horizontal, rolled back to the hangar, inspected, and finally have the payload and fairing attached to the rocket, a sensitive process that demands nuance and time. Combined with an analysis of data gathered during the static fire, this process – when all goes as planned – can take at least 48 hours from start to finish, and longer still if any minor off-nominal behavior is observed or the launch customer has additional requirements (typically reserved for NASA and national security-related missions).
-
- B1047 horizontal at Pad 39A, November 11. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1047 made an extraordinary ring vortex rainbow as it smashed through Max Q, the point of highest aerodynamic stress on the rocket. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1046 seen mid-static fire at Pad 39A ahead of Falcon 9 Block 5’s launch debut, May 2018. (Tom Cross)
Because rockets like Falcon 9 are extraordinarily intricate and finely-tuned machines, perfectly nominal launch-related events are few and far between. In reality, the time between static fire rollout and launch readiness is rarely less than three days (72 hours), not including the process of rolling the fully-integrated rocket back out to the pad, aligning and securing the vehicle and transporter-erector (TE) over the flame trench, and finally attaching all umbilical connections and verifying vehicle health. Speaking generally, four to five days is a good rule of thumb for the time it takes to complete Falcon 9’s static fire and return the rocket to the pad after attaching the payload.
Still, it’s always a good sign when a drone ship leaves port, much like OCISLY did on the evening of the 11th. The journey to its destination will take 2-3 days, meaning that the drone ship will be ready to catch Falcon 9 whenever the rocket is ready to launch.
Drone ships and sooty rockets, oh my!
On the West Coast, SpaceX is also getting ready for drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) to depart Port of San Pedro in anticipation of a presumed sea recovery of Falcon 9 following the NET Nov 19 launch of a multi-satellite rideshare mission known as SSO-A. While SpaceX currently holds two recovery licenses for the booster, one by sea and one at the land-based LZ-4 pad, it’s possible that the company will be forced to use JRTI despite the fact that Falcon 9 will have plenty of propellant left to return itself to the launch site (RTLS). United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) next Delta IV Heavy rocket is currently on-pad with a presumably very expensive National Reconnaissance (NRO) satellite attached roughly 1.5 miles northeast of SpaceX’s LZ-4 – the rest of the gaps are easy enough to fill in.
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1046 seen during both of its post-launch landings. (SpaceX/SpaceX)
-
- B1047 completed its first successful launch in July 2018. (Tom Cross)
-
- B1047 seen rolling into 39A’s integration hangar for refurbishment on July 31st. (Reddit – Kent767)
JRTI was spotted by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin performing some rare sea trials on November 10 after spending several weeks berthed at port for routine maintenance and deck repairs. Fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has also been undergoing some unusual modifications, now proudly sporting what can only be described as a steel horn recently installed on the tip of his bow deck. After sitting out a catch attempt during the launch of SAOCOM 1A to prepare for controlled helicopter drop tests performed over a period of several weeks in October, Mr. Steven will most likely be ready for another stab at operational fairing recovery during SSO-A.
Both rockets – B1047 to the East and (presumed) B1046 to the West – are flight-proven, meaning that they have flown operational orbital missions prior to their upcoming launch attempts, B1047 launched communications satellite Telstar 19V in July 2018, while B1046 has actually performed two successful launches already, Bangabandhu-1 in May and Telkom 4 (Merah Putih) in August.
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
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
