News
SpaceX wants to boost Hubble Space Telescope’s orbit with Dragon spacecraft
NASA and SpaceX have signed a Space Act Agreement to study the feasibility of boosting the orbit of the iconic Hubble Space Telescope, potentially ensuring that the highly successful observatory will remain operable well into the middle of this century.
Thanks to three servicing missions completed in the 1990s and 2000s, Hubble remains highly productive more than 32 years after its launch. NASA believes that that will remain the case until at least the late 2020s or 2030s. However, many components of the telescope have spent decades in the unforgiving environment of space, raising unsurprising concerns about their longevity.
More importantly, the inexorable march of time, gravity, and Earth’s atmosphere mean that Hubble is guaranteed to eventually reenter that atmosphere and burn up without intervention. That demise could come as early as the mid-2030s, but SpaceX thinks it could help extend the telescope’s viability into the 2050s.
NASA and SpaceX will spend the next six or so months discussing whether it’s possible to use Dragon to boost the telescope’s orbit back to a nominal 600 kilometers (~372 mi). Both parties say that the agreement will also investigate the possibility of Dragon servicing missions, which could be even more significant for Hubble. While a boost that large would likely keep it in orbit for decades to come, there’s no guarantee the telescope would remain functional to take full advantage of the extra time it would have.
During the fifth and final Space Shuttle servicing mission, NASA astronauts installed a docking adapter (Soft Capture Mechanism) on the Hubble Telescope. Although no concrete plans existed for any additional servicing missions, the forward-facing installation of that adapter has made this feasibility study possible.
In theory, that docking adapter could make boosting Hubble’s orbit far more feasible, safe, and affordable than a Shuttle-style crewed servicing mission. SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft has the same autonomous docking capabilities its crewed sibling has and costs less to launch and operate, so it’s not inconceivable that an uncrewed Dragon could autonomously dock with Hubble and boost its orbit. Jessica Jensen, SpaceX’s Vice President of Customer Operations and Integration, says that an uncrewed option will be studied alongside crewed servicing and orbit-boost alternatives.
According to Patrick Crouse, NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope project manager, without a reboost, NASA would need to consider a separate mission to ensure a controlled deorbit of the massive telescope by “the end of the decade.” The study’s targeted boost of “40 to 70 kilometers,” meanwhile, could extend the longevity of Hubble’s orbit by “15 to 20 years,” or well into the 2050s. But as a feasibility study, there’s a chance that it will conclude that using Dragon – crewed or uncrewed – to boost or service HST isn’t feasible. Ordinarily, the most likely outcome would be a conclusion that the project is feasible from a technical perspective but out of reach from a financial perspective.
Enter billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacman, who was directly involved in the September 29th press conference. In September 2021, Isaacman – alongside four others – became the first all-private astronaut mission in history to reach orbit. After the spectacular success of Inspiration4, Isaacman’s relationship with SpaceX has become even closer. In early 2022, the pair announced a new endeavor – the Polaris Program – that intends to conduct at least two or three more private astronaut launches over the next few years.
Expanding the scope of their joint ambitions, the Polaris Program intends to debut the world’s first privately developed EVA spacesuit, test spacecraft-to-spacecraft communications using Starlink’s network of space lasers, and culminate in the first crewed launch of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket. On its own, the decision to privately fund and develop an EVA suit and pursue the ability to conduct EVAs out of Crew Dragon represents a major leap forward for SpaceX and private spaceflight if realized.
But crucially, when asked about the synergies between the Polaris Program, SpaceX, and NASA, Isaacman revealed that he and SpaceX are willing to undertake a sixth Hubble servicing mission more or less pro bono, “with little or no potential cost to the government.” According to Isaacman, it’s possible that “the study could result in [a Hubble servicing mission] becoming the second [Polaris Program] mission.”
Polaris Dawn, the program’s first mission, was recently delayed from a late-2022 launch target to March 2023. The four private astronauts assigned to the mission (including Isaacman himself) recently began training for the historic private EVA, which will see two of four astronauts attempt to briefly exit their Crew Dragon spacecraft in new SpaceX-designed suits. With a targeted apogee of 1400 kilometers (~870 mi), the mission will also attempt to break the record for the highest Earth orbit reached by astronauts, and the spacewalk attempt will also occur at a record-breaking altitude of 700 kilometers (~435 mi)
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
