News
SpaceX may have missed a rocket booster landing but it snagged both nosecone halves
Although SpaceX sadly lost a record-breaking rocket booster and suffered a significant in-flight anomaly during its sixth Starlink launch, the company later revealed that it successfully recovered both of Falcon 9’s nosecone halves.
Starlink V1 L5 is now the second time ever that SpaceX – or anyone, for that matter – has successfully reused an orbital-class launch vehicle payload fairing, while the mission also marked the first time that SpaceX managed to recover a reused Falcon fairing. The burn from booster issues certainly isn’t fully salved, as twin fairing catchers Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief both missed their fairing catch attempts, but both twice-flown fairing halves were still successfully scooped out of the Atlantic Ocean before they were torn apart.
This is perhaps the most important milestone for SpaceX’s fairing recovery and reuse program since the first successful catch (June 2019) and first successful reuse (November 2019). With a twice-flown fairing now safely in hand for the first time, SpaceX will hopefully be able to dramatically expand its understanding of how flight-proven fairings – especially those that were fished out of the sea – stand up to launch conditions. If these flight-proven halves appear to be in great condition, it could be a boon for the near-term future of fairing recovery and reuse.
Catching fairings = hard
SpaceX has now been attempting to catch Falcon payload fairings for more than two years, beginning back in February 2018 after many months of additional development prior. The first successful catch came on the sixth post-launch attempt, followed immediately by a second successful catch two months later (August 2019). That back-to-back recovery appears to have been a bit of a fluke, however, with only one additional partial success (one of two ships caught a half) out of the five subsequent attempts.
By all appearances, accurately and reliably catching parasailing Falcon fairings is a spectacularly unforgiving challenge. That shouldn’t come as a huge surprise: each Falcon fairing will typically reach top speeds of 2.5+ km/s (1.5+ mi/s), technically reach space (100+ km or 63+ mi), and travel 500-1000+ km (300-600 mi) downrange before even remotely entering the vicinity of the ships designed to catch them out of the air.
Likely weighing just ~1000 kg (2200 lb) apiece, the lightweight, sail-like nature of SpaceX’s carbon fiber-aluminum honeycomb payload fairings is both a blessing and a curse. While it means they can effectively reenter Earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic velocities with next to no heat shield, it also means that free-falling and parasailing fairing halves are at the full mercy of said atmosphere after reentry, bowing to winds and air currents like dandelions in a breeze.
Fairing halves ultimately spend something like 30-40 minutes parasailing through the atmosphere after parafoil deployment, creating vast uncertainties when it comes to local weather and the general behavior of the atmosphere. Even excluding weather, the average fairing catch attempt is roughly akin to throwing an average marble into a kitchen sink from more than a kilometer (0.8 mi) away.
Soft ocean landings: quite a bit easier
What SpaceX has effectively discovered is that while catching fairing halves may be almost comically difficult, recovering the same halves intact is easily doable if the goal instead is to gently pick them up off the ocean surface. Of the eleven catch attempts SpaceX has made, all but two were followed by recovery vessels extracting one or both fairing halves -intact – from the ocean.
Most notably, though, SpaceX has yet to reuse any of the three Falcon fairing halves that were caught with Ms. Tree. Instead, both the first and second reuses used fairing halves that had been fished onto recovery ships after gentle Atlantic Ocean landings.
SpaceX has ultimately chosen to tackle the much harder reusability challenge – reusing fairings that have been partially immersed in saltwater – first, and done so quite successfully. Critically, the first reused fairing was unable to be recovered – even by sea – due to bad weather in the area, meaning that Wednesday’s recovery was a first for rare flight-proven fairing hardware. Given all the challenges Falcon fairings face with water sealing, corrosion, and contamination after water landings, it would be little surprise to learn that the second reused fairing is not exactly in pristine condition.
However, if it looks as good or better than SpaceX’s less-informed expectations, there’s a chance that it could open the floodgates for the full-scale pursuit of routine waterlogged fairing reuse. Even better, if the Starlink v0.9 and V1 L5 fairing halves have been recovered in great condition, there might be a chance to reuse Falcon fairings multiple times, following in the footsteps of the rocket boosters they launch on top of.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
