News
SpaceX’s NASA astronaut launch debut jumps its place in line, now up next
According to NASASpaceflight.com reporter Michael Baylor, SpaceX’s Starlink-7 satellite launch has been indefinitely delayed due to drone ship constraints, meaning that the company’s Crew Dragon astronaut launch is now up next.
As a result, SpaceX’s next orbital launch has been delayed by at least eight days. In return, however, that launch will arguably be the most important in the company’s 18-year history, (hopefully) marking the biggest step by far SpaceX has taken towards its main goals of democratizing spaceflight and enabling the sustainable, permanent settlement of Mars. Known as Demonstration Mission 2 (Demo-2), it will simultaneously be the first crewed launch under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) and SpaceX’s first astronaut launch ever and is scheduled to lift off no earlier than (NET) 4:33 pm EDT (20:33 UTC), May 27th.
Formerly scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) May 7th, 17th, 18th, and 19th after a number of technical and weather-related delays, SpaceX’s 8th 60-satellite Starlink launch has now been delayed until sometime after Crew Dragon’s late-May inaugural astronaut launch. According to NASASpaceflight and speculated about in-depth on unofficial forums in the days prior, the schedule swap decision was made due to constraints in SpaceX’s drone ship. While simple on the face of things, the change does reveal a bit of the hidden strategy behind SpaceX’s management of both its rocket fleet and the ships that recover them.
Compounded by multiple largely unrelated delays, including weather in the planned booster and fairing landing zones, the Starlink-7/Demo-2 launch swap was caused by the simple fact that SpaceX only has one operational drone ship on the East Coast. The company coincidentally began sea trials with a second drone ship the very same day that Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) headed out to sea to catch Starlink-7’s Falcon 9 booster. However, that second ship has been extensively upgraded and will likely take several weeks of sea trials before it can be declared ready for its first East Coast rocket recovery attempt.
For each drone ship booster landing, it takes at least a week for the ship to be towed several hundred miles downrange to the recovery zone and at least as long to return to port. Add in the time required to safe and secure a landed Falcon 9 or Heavy booster, navigate sea states to prevent damage to – or the outright loss of – that booster, and the work needed to safely lift it off the drone ship’s deck onto dry land and it can easily be 9-10 days before a drone ship is ready for another landing.
At the same time, SpaceX’s turnaround record is about eight days between booster landings. Had SpaceX persevered and attempted to launch Starlink-7 on May 19th and Crew Dragon’s inaugural astronaut launch on May 27th, it’s possible that things would have worked out, with both booster landings occurring on schedule on the same drone ship. However, given just how much of a priority Crew Dragon Demo-2 is compared to an internal Starlink launch and a tropical storm threatening to delay Starlink-7’s launch and landing even further, SpaceX clearly decided that it just wasn’t worth the risk.
Given the extraordinary importance of Demo-2, set to be the first time the United States has launched its own astronauts into orbit in almost nine years, it’s not exactly surprising that SpaceX has chosen conservatism this time around and prioritized its inaugural NASA astronaut launch. According to Spaceflight Now, the Crew Dragon capsule assigned to SpaceX’s inaugural NASA astronaut launch – pictured above – actually joined the new Falcon 9 rocket that will launch it at Pad 39A on May 15th. Now fully fueled with liquid hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, the spacecraft could be mated with Falcon 9’s upper stage at any moment (if it hasn’t been already).
Once fully assembled, Falcon 9 booster B1058, a new Falcon 9 upper stage, Crew Dragon capsule C206, and an expendable trunk section will be rolled horizontally out to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Pad 39A to perform a crucial pre-launch static fire test. Rollout and static fire operations could begin at any point within the next few days. It remains to be seen whether drone ship OCISLY will remain in the Atlantic Ocean or head back to Port Canaveral before departing again to catch booster B1058.
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
