News
SpaceX fires up rocket for second NASA spacecraft launch in two weeks
SpaceX says it has successfully static fired Falcon 9 ahead of the company’s second scientific NASA spacecraft launch in just two weeks.
On November 24th, SpaceX successfully launched the small Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft, marking Falcon 9’s first direct interplanetary launch and the rocket’s first flight-proven mission for NASA’s Launch Service Program (LSP). Now, as early as 1am EST (06:00 UTC) on Thursday, December 9th, SpaceX is on track to launch an even tinier NASA spacecraft known as the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer or IXPE. A telescope designed to survey some of the most extreme environments in the known universe, IXPE was originally meant to launch on the small but expensive and oft-delayed Pegasus XL rocket and weighs about 325 kilograms (720 lb) as a result.
Instead, in mid-2019, SpaceX effectively stole NASA’s IXPE launch contract out from under Orbital ATK in the midst of chronic delays of a different Pegasus XL NASA mission, bidding just over $50 million to launch the smallsat on Falcon 9. Some two years behind schedule when it finally completed the mission, Pegasus XL ultimately launched NASA’s similarly small ICON spacecraft in October 2019 for the equivalent of ~$66 million in 2021
In other words, SpaceX is charging NASA less than Orbital ATK charged to launch ICON on a rocket capable of delivering 600 kg (~1300 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO) to launch IXPE on a rocket capable of launching about 16,000 kg (~35,000 lb) to the same orbit. Even then, despite Falcon 9’s comparatively dirt-cheap pricing relative to the performance it offers, the IXPE launch should still be profitable for SpaceX. In the recent past, CEO Elon Musk and a few other executives have indicated that the cost to SpaceX to launch a flight-proven Falcon 9 is between $15 million and $28 million depending on how costs are measured.
That is to say that even at $50M, SpaceX has plenty of breathing room to drop launch costs even further if it ever runs into actual competitive pressure. Since the first booster recovery in December 2015 and the first booster reuse in March 2017, Falcon 9 is still the world’s only reusable orbital-class rocket. IXPE is the latest in a line of NASA missions to benefit from SpaceX’s unprecedented private expertise and the company has assigned Falcon 9 booster B1061 to launch the ~$140M spacecraft.
The booster has currently launched eight astronauts, three Dragons, and one large geostationary communications satellite in its four-launch, 13-month career and IXPE will be the booster’s fifth spaceflight and orbital-class launch since November 2020. It will also be the smallest dedicated payload a Falcon 9 rocket has ever launched by a large margin, making for a very empty payload fairing at liftoff.
On December 4th, SpaceX successfully performed a launch rehearsal, fully fueling Falcon 9 B1061 and a new upper stage and briefly firing up the booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines to verify that the vehicle is ready for flight. The company has since brought Falcon 9 horizontal and rolled it back into Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Pad 39A’s main hangar, where the rocket’s payload fairing – containing IXPE – will be attached to the rest of the stack. IXPE will be SpaceX’s 28th launch in 2021 (a new record) and is the second of four or five East Coast Falcon 9 launches planned this December.
Read more about the IXPE spacecraft and its mission to observe black holes, dead stars, and other bizarre phenomena here.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
