News
SpaceX launches Japanese lander, NASA cubesat to the Moon
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has successfully launched a privately-developed Japanese Moon lander and a NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory cubesat on their way to lunar orbit.
Following five back-to-back delays that pushed the launch from November to mid-December, Falcon 9 lifted off with Japanese startup ispace’s first HAKUTO-R Moon lander on December 11th, kicking off a multi-month journey that will take the spacecraft more than 700,000 miles (1.1M km) away from Earth. It’s not the first time SpaceX has launched a mostly commercial Moon lander, and it won’t be the last. SpaceX’s first Moon lander launch happened in February 2019, when Falcon 9 launched Israeli company SpaceIL’s Beresheet Moon lander as a rideshare payload on Indonesia’s PSN-6 geostationary communications satellite. Beresheet failed just a minute or two before touchdown, but the attempt was still a historic step for commercial spaceflight.
Just shy of three years later, SpaceX has launched another private Moon lander. Unlike Beresheet, which made its way to the Moon from geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), HAKUTO-R was Falcon 9’s main payload, allowing the rocket to launch it directly into deep space. A Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) cubesat that missed a long-planned ride on NASA’s first Space Launch System (SLS) rocket also joined the Moon lander as a Falcon 9 rideshare payload.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Approximately four months from now, both spacecraft will reach the end of similar low-energy ballistic transfer trajectories, at which point they will have limited opportunities to enter lunar orbit and continue their missions. Reaching that checkpoint will require several successful orbital correction maneuvers and enough longevity to survive months in deep space, unprotected by Earth’s magnetic fields.
If they make it that far, HAKUTO-R will conduct several more burns to reach low lunar orbit (LLO), where ispace will verify the spacecraft’s health and eventually attempt a soft landing on the Moon. A privately-developed spacecraft has never landed on an extraterrestrial body, so the prestige at stake is about as high as it can get. If JPL’s Lunar Flashlight spacecraft [PDF] survives its journey, it will enter a near-rectilinear halo orbit around a point of gravitational equilibrium (Lagrange point) between the Earth and Moon. Once on station, it will spend most of its time 9000 kilometers (~5600 mi) away from the Moon but occasionally fly within 15 kilometers (~9 mi) of the surface. Under JPL’s nominal mission plan, Lunar Flashlight will complete at least ten week-long orbits and use an infrared laser instrument to search for water ice in permanently-shadowed Moon craters during each close approach.
Without context, both missions seem to complement each other well, and it’s not hard to imagine an alternative scenario where a cubesat like Lunar Flashlight was intentionally included to prospect for ice that a lander could then target. But the JPL cubesat’s presence on ispace’s HAKUTO-R was purely by accident. Because of certain design decisions made by NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft contractors, the giant rocket is intended to launch cubesat rideshare payloads to the Moon, but those satellites are barely accessible for the entire time the rocket is configured for its unprecedentedly slow launch campaigns.
As a result, even though SLS lifted off for the first time in November 2022, its cubesat payloads had to be ready for launch and installed on the rocket in October 2021. Out of 14 planned payloads, four – including Lunar Flashlight – weren’t ready in time, forcing them to find other ways to deep space. Ironically, that may have been an unexpected blessing, as the ten payloads that did make the deadline wound up sitting inside SLS for 13 months, much of which was spent at the launch pad. Half of those satellites appear to have partially or completely failed shortly after launch.
Because of the extremely circuitous path the NASA rocket ultimately took to reach launch readiness, JPL was able to find a new ride to the Moon and launch less than one month after SLS and its co-passengers. Unlike those copassengers, Lunar Flashlight likely spent just a few weeks installed on Falcon 9 before launching to the Moon. Additionally, the SLS launch trajectory took it more or less directly to the Moon, giving its rideshare payloads just a handful of days to troubleshoot any problems discovered. Thanks to the slower, more efficient transfer orbit SpaceX used to launch HAKUTO-R, JPL should still have opportunities to enter a nominal orbit even if Lunar Flashlight requires weeks of in-space troubleshooting – far more margin for error than most SLS copassengers received.
Lunar Flashlight weighs about 14 kilograms (~31 lb) at liftoff, features two sets of solar arrays, and packs a first-of-its-kind chemical propulsion system designed to deliver up to 290 m/s of delta-V – a ton of performance for such a small satellite. HAKUTO-R weighs closer to 1.1 tons (~2400 lb) and is a far more capable spacecraft, in theory – a necessity to land softly on the Moon. At ispace’s request, Falcon 9’s low-energy ballistic transfer orbit reduced the lander’s performance requirements, but it will need roughly 2000-2500 m/s of delta-V to enter lunar orbit and land on the lunar surface.
On December 12th, ispace confirmed that HAKUTO-R is in excellent shape around 24 hours after liftoff. ispace says the lander has secured stable communications, a stable orientation in space, and positive power generation from its solar arrays. An ispace infographic indicates that the spacecraft will enter lunar orbit around mid-April if all goes to plan. With HAKUTO-R in a stable state, the next most important near-term milestone will be the successful use of its propulsion and navigation systems. The startup hopes to demonstrate smooth deep space operations, including routine trajectory correction maneuvers, within one month of launch.
HAKUTO-R was SpaceX’s 56th successful launch of 2022 and the company’s second direct Moon launch this year after sending South Korea’s KPLO orbiter to the Moon in August.
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
