News
SpaceX’s NASA Crew Dragon launch manifest doubles in three months
NASA says it will soon award SpaceX another five Crew Dragon astronaut transport contracts after purchasing three extra missions from the company on February 28th.
That June 1st announcement means that NASA has more than doubled the number of operational Crew Dragon astronaut launches planned between 2020 to the end of 2030 in the last three months – a decision that represents another major SpaceX upset over Boeing. In reality, NASA has simply made some cold and rational calculations about its two Commercial Crew providers and – with no ill intent – made far-reaching decisions to preemptively secure its astronauts’ access to the International Space Station (ISS) for the rest of this decade. Intentional or not, however, the optics of those decisions speak volumes.
When NASA awarded Boeing and SpaceX their original $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts in 2014, the agency’s goal (or hope) was for both providers to complete the development of their Starliner and Crew Dragon spacecraft in roughly the same amount of time. Boeing and SpaceX would have then taken turns, each performing one six-month crew transportation mission per year and ensuring redundant access to the ISS for the rest of its life.
More realistically, the general assumption was that Boeing – an ancient aerospace company with half a century of spaceflight experience – would smoothly complete Starliner while SpaceX – a 12-year-old startup – would struggle to push Crew Dragon across the finish line. Of course, exactly the opposite proved to be true. For what would ultimately become (to NASA) $3.15 billion to Boeing’s $4.95 billion and development and test flight costs of $1.2 billion to Boeing’s $2.2 billion, SpaceX completed its first successful uncrewed and crewed Crew Dragon test flights in March 2019 and May 2020. In contrast, Boeing’s first uncrewed Starliner launch attempt nearly ended in catastrophe in December 2019. A second July 2021 attempt at that mission was prevented from launching by unrelated technical difficulties. Only on May 25th, 2022 did Boeing finally complete the equivalent of Crew Dragon’s March 2019 Demo-1 test flight.
NASA’s February 28th purchase of three more SpaceX Crew Dragon missions was unsurprising. The future of Starliner was still unclear and the Dragon missions it was purchasing could be needed as early as 2023 if Boeing’s spacecraft was not ready in time. The timing of NASA’s notice of intent to purchase another five Crew Dragon missions one week after the end of Boeing’s mostly successful OFT-2 test flight, however, is somewhat surprising. Instead of throwing Boeing a bone after its long-awaited success and somewhat balancing the scales between its two Commercial Crew providers, NASA has ultimately decided to purchase more than twice as many crew missions from SpaceX.
Following NASA and SpaceX’s successful Crew-4 launch last month, the space agency needs 16 more six-month transport missions from SpaceX and Boeing to ensure astronaut access to the ISS between now and late 2030. NASA has issued its intent to perform up to 14 operational Crew Dragon missions and up to 6 Starliner missions (via Boeing’s original contract). Subtracting the 4 missions SpaceX has completed or is in the midst of completing, NASA will soon have all the contracts it needs to crew the ISS until the end of 2030 without purchasing a single extra mission from Boeing.
As a result, barring surprises, SpaceX will likely be responsible for launching 70% of all NASA and ESA astronauts from late 2020 to the end of 2030, while Boeing will be tasked with carrying the remaining 30%. A less likely Commercial Crew outcome would have been hard to imagine in 2014.
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
