News
SpaceX to test last old-gen Falcon 9’s orbital upper stage lifespan tonight
SpaceX Falcon 9 B1045 is just hours away from completing its second and final mission, a launch that will also signify a swan-song for the reusable rocket company’s Block 4 and older boosters. Not one to let an opportunity go to waste, Elon Musk’s space company intends to do a long coast demonstration of the orbital upper stage once the reused Cargo Dragon spacecraft separates.
Jessica Jensen, SpaceX’s Director of Dragon Mission Management, spoke among a panel of CRS-15 stakeholders on the morning of June 28 and spoke evident pride and confidence in the company’s progress up to this point, with respect to both the mission at hand and SpaceX’s achievements more generally. CRS-15, the third flight-proven Dragon and Falcon 9 launch, is a fitting mission for SpaceX to bring to a close their H1 launch manifest (the 12th of 2018), mainly due to the impressive fact that more than two-thirds of the boosters launched this year have been flight-proven.
Falcon 9 B1045 before its first launch, carrying NASA’s TESS exoplanet observatory, in April 2018. (Tom Cross)
As Jensen rightfully noted, SpaceX completed its first-ever reuse of a recovered Falcon 9 booster scarcely 15 months ago in March 2017, a period in which SpaceX has since completed 26 missions, recovered 16 Falcon 9 and Heavy boosters, and successfully launched 12 flight-proven rocket boosters. At the current rate of launch, SpaceX is likely to smash its previous annual cadence record – 18 in 2017 – with anywhere from 24 to 28 launches this year, with CRS-15 marking a dozen missions in the first half of the year, if successful. As such, simply the launch frequency in the first six months would bring SpaceX to 24 completed missions this year. A slight uptick, perhaps as a result of the rapid reusability of new Block 5 boosters, might allow SpaceX to squeeze in several additional missions.
Falcon 9 B1045 and it’s Cargo Dragon C111 prepare for their second flights on June 29. (Tom Cross)
Critically, Jensen also noted that B1045’s final launch will be significant for a reason other than the fact that it nearly halved the previous record for Falcon 9 booster refurbishment, an accomplishment she ceded to the skill and growing experience of SpaceX’s rocket refurbishment teams of engineers and technicians. Aside from that growing expertise, she stated that
“[CRS-15] will also be the final Block 4 configuration of a Falcon 9 booster that SpaceX flies, so all the boosters from here on out will be the Block 5 version.”
Barring unforeseen design flaws, Falcon 9 Block 5 has the potential to be a game-changer, perhaps allowing SpaceX to finally realize a long-term goal of dramatically lowering the cost of access to orbit with new reliable, reusable rockets. Reported by NASASpaceflight.com to be flying aboard a Block 4 booster, something also confirmed to Teslarati through a separate source, it’s not 100% clear if Jensen’s blanket statement included the upcoming in-flight Crew Dragon abort test, scheduled sometime after the upgraded Dragon’s first launch in late 2018. Regardless, she is fully correct in the sense that all future commercial SpaceX launches after CRS-15 will quite definitively fly aboard Falcon 9 and Heavy Block 5 rockets.
-
- The first Block 5 Falcon 9 lifts off on May 4, 2018. (Tom Cross)
-
- After CRS-15, all orbital launches will be use Block 5 boosters and upper stages. The upgraded rocket’s next launch is NET July 20. (Tom Cross)
Flight-proven Cargo Dragons a new norm for SpaceX
Meanwhile, the specifics of CRS-15 mirror SpaceX’s two most recent International Space Station resupply missions, both of which simultaneously flew flight-proven orbital Cargo Dragon spacecraft and flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters, leaving just the second stage and Cargo Dragon trunk to be expended. As a taste of the future SpaceX fully intends to realize, the spectacle of these CRS missions is not only undeniable but demonstrates a newfound confidence in commercial reusable rockets growing within NASA, an agency that SpaceX would quite simply not be here today without.
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1012490324646748163
After CRS-15, SpaceX has another five flight-proven Cargo Dragon missions left on their CRS-1 contract, after which the updated CRS-2 contract will take over, replacing the old Cargo Dragon with an upgraded cargo version of SpaceX Crew Dragon, also known as Dragon 2. CRS-2 launches are currently scheduled to begin sometime in 2020.
Finally, reminiscent of Falcon Heavy’s spectacular debut launch, Falcon 9’s upper stage “will be doing a long coast demonstration [after Cargo Dragon separates from the rocket]”. Jensen was unable to go into more detail here, but it can be safely presumed that the S2 coast test is either related testing for upper stage reusability or is being used as an opportunity to further demonstrate on-orbit coast capabilities to the US Air Force and/or NASA, a feature that is necessary for certain national security and interplanetary missions.
-
- An overview of Crew Dragon’s main features, all of which can be seen in the real-life photos. The Cargo Dragon version will likely remove seats and windows. (SpaceX)
-
- The DM-1 Crew Dragon testing inside SpaceX’s anechoic chamber, May 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s Demo Mission-1 Crew Dragon seen preparing for vacuum tests at a NASA-run facility, June 2018. (SpaceX)
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
