News
SpaceX, NASA moving forward with plans to build second Dragon launch pad
SpaceX and NASA officials have confirmed that they are moving forward with plans to modify the company’s second Florida launch pad to support Crew and Cargo Dragon missions.
First reported by Reuters in June 2022, SpaceX began studying the possibility of modifying its Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-40 pad for Dragon missions earlier this year after NASA raised concerns about the risks posed by plans to operate its next-generation Starship rocket out of the only pad available for Dragon. Three months later, the partners have committed to that plan and, according to SpaceX, hardware for the required modifications is already in work.
After a false-start in 2019 and 2020, SpaceX began rapidly constructing Starship’s first Florida launch site at the LC-39A pad it leases from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) earlier this year. Thanks to a series of modifications and additions to existing Space Shuttle infrastructure, Pad 39A is also the only site currently capable of launching Crew and Cargo Dragon spacecraft on Falcon 9 rockets. Located just 1000 feet (~300 m) east of 39A’s existing Falcon and Dragon launch facilities and access tower, Starship is unlikely to have much of an impact during nominal operations, but the program does have a history of building prototypes that occasionally explode.
Until late 2023 at the absolute earliest, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is the only spacecraft capable of sustaining NASA’s presence (typically 4-5 astronauts) at the International Space Station (ISS). Years behind schedule, Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule is scheduled to attempt its first crewed test flight (CTF) no sooner than February 2023. Starliner’s first operational astronaut transport mission could then follow in September 2023, but it could easily slip into 2024 if the CTF is less than flawless. To date, both of Starliner’s uncrewed test flights have uncovered significant issues that required months of additional work to rectify.
When a Falcon 9 rocket exploded at LC-40 in 2016, causing damage that effectively required a total rebuild, it took SpaceX 15 months to resurrect the pad. In other words, if a Starship launch failed and destroyed Pad 39A’s Falcon and Dragon facilities at some point within the next 12-18 months, it could easily threaten NASA’s ability to maintain the ISS if Boeing was unable to take over.
Even though SpaceX would never risk launching Starship out of Pad 39A if it knew there was a high risk of the new rocket failing and harming Dragon operations, NASA is in the business of ensuring that contingencies exist in case of unlikely but catastrophic events. It doesn’t matter if Starship probably won’t explode or if Starliner will probably be ready to take over. The risk is always there and SpaceX and NASA must be ready for the possibility.
Nothing is known about the nature of the modifications that LC-40 will require. But more likely than not, NASA will require SpaceX to develop something similar to Pad 39A’s facilities. That would involve building a new crew access tower, crew access arm, escape system (39A uses baskets and ziplines), and an on-site bunker for astronauts.
Given that the need for a backup Dragon launch pad comes largely at NASA’s behest, there’s a good chance that the agency will require that that backup be in place before SpaceX will be allowed to launch Starship out of Pad 39A. Earlier this month, CEO Elon Musk delayed his estimate for the first Florida Starship launch from late 2022 to Q2 2023. It’s highly unlikely that SpaceX will be able to finish modifying LC-40 by Q2 2023.
SpaceX will have to undertake the already challenging, time-sensitive construction project on a high-security military base and well within the blast radius of the single most active launch pad in the world. Much of the custom hardware required could have significant lead times, further extending the construction timeline. Unless SpaceX is willing to seriously constrain LC-40’s launch cadence, which would likely make its goals of 60+ launches in 2022 and up to 100 Falcon launches in 2023 impossible, the work will take even longer than it would under ordinary circumstances.
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
