News
SpaceX wins launch contracts for three more Launcher space tugs
Startup ‘Launcher Space’ has chosen SpaceX to launch at least three more ‘Orbiter’ space tugs, meaning that the company will have a payload on every dedicated SpaceX rideshare launch planned from Q4 2022 to the end of 2023.
Following SpaceX’s third successful dedicated rideshare launch in January 2022, the company has another two missions – Transporter-4 and -5 – scheduled in the first half of the year. In October 2021, Launcher announced its Orbiter spacecraft program and plans to manifest the first vehicle on a SpaceX rideshare mission – likely Transporter-6 – scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) October 2022.
Announced in the summer of 2019, SpaceX’s Smallsat Rideshare Program has offered one of the easiest and most affordable tickets to space for two and a half years. Following a handful of Starlink rideshare missions in 2020, SpaceX kicked off dedicated Transporter launches in January 2021 and has since delivered more than 320 customer satellites and payloads to orbit. By treating each Transporter mission a bit like public transit and also opening the door for third-party launch servicers, SpaceX has been able to somewhat simplify the tedious process of organizing large-scale rideshare missions.
Most importantly, thanks to the unprecedented affordability of its Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX has allowed rideshare customers to reap a great deal of the benefits by charging just $1M per 200-kilogram (440 lb) ‘slot’ and a flat $5,000 for each additional kilogram. To anyone unfamiliar with the cost of spaceflight, that might seem obscene, but it’s extraordinarily affordable and far cheaper than every advertised alternative. Astra Space, the cheapest dedicated smallsat launch provider, sells a Rocket 3 vehicle capable of launching about 50 kilograms (110 lb) to a similar orbit for ~$3.5M – equivalent to $70,000 per kilogram. Rocket 3 has only completed one successful launch, however. Rocket Lab’s more accessible Electron rocket costs at least $7.5M for ~200 kilograms to sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) – a price of $37,500/kg.
Nonetheless, the single most significant drawback of rideshares – a one-size-fits-all orbit – remains. Short of a much more complex, expensive trajectory that would require Falcon 9’s upper stage to reignite several times, every payload launched on Transporter missions ends up in the same initial orbit. To solve that problem, a not insignificant number of companies have been formed in recent years to develop competitive orbital transfer vehicles. In theory, propulsive space tugs could potentially give rideshare payloads the best of both worlds – ultra-cheap launch costs and, within reason, delivery to a specific orbit of choice.
Launcher’s Orbiter is perhaps the most promising of the lot. Scheduled to debut no earlier than (NET) October 2022, Orbiter will use pressure-fed 3D-printed thrusters fed by ethane and nitrous oxide propellant stored in 3D-printed tanks. The company has already begun printing and hot-fire testing multiple thrusters, has received the first set of Orbiter avionics and solar panels, and seemingly remains very confident about the schedule for that spacecraft’s launch debut.
Additionally, Launcher is actually publicizing pricing for the stage. Bought outright, each Orbiter will cost about $400,000. Using its full 400 kg (880 lb) payload margin, a Falcon 9 launch with Orbiter – enabling precise orbital targeting – would cost a prospective customer about $3.5M – less than $9,000/kg. For a 200 kg (440 lb) payload, a Falcon 9 + Orbiter launch might cost less than $7,000/kg (~$2.5M). For Orbiter rideshare missions, Launcher will charge between $8,000 and $25,000 per kilogram – multiple times cheaper than alternatives at the low end and still competitive at the high end.
Other companies like Spaceflight Industries, D-Orbit, Momentus, Exolaunch, and more are also developing – or already flight-testing – their own space tugs, though most are being cryptic about their prices and capabilities.
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
