News
SpaceX, NASA targeting separate Moon launches days apart
NASA and a SpaceX customer have announced plans to launch two unrelated Moon missions days apart next month.
On October 12th, NASA confirmed that it will roll its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket out to its Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad for the fourth time as early as November 4th. Barring surprises, the rocket’s next launch attempt is scheduled no earlier than (NET) 12:07 am EDT (17:07 UTC), November 14th. SLS is tasked with launching an uncrewed prototype of NASA’s Orion crew capsule on its way to the Moon, where the spacecraft will attempt to enter lunar orbit and conduct tests before returning to Earth.
The same day, Japanese startup ispace confirmed that HAKUTO-R M1, its first commercial Moon lander, is scheduled to launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket sometime between November 9th and 15th. While NASA has a $73M contract with ispace to develop a second-generation SERIES-2 Moon lander in the United States, the first-generation HAKUTO-R program has been an almost entirely private endeavor. The first M1 lander will attempt to deliver two rovers – one built by Japan and the other by the United Arab Emirates – and several other commercial and government payloads to the surface of the Moon.


As of 2020, HAKUTO-R is expected to weigh around 1050 kilograms (~2300 lb) at launch and has been designed to land up to 30 kilograms (~66 lb) of usable payload on the Moon. ispace has designed and built most of the lander’s structures but contracted with Europe’s ArianeGroup to provide the propulsion system and fully assemble, integrate, and test the lander in Germany.
According to ispace’s documentation [PDF], Falcon 9 will launch HAKUTO-R into a “supersynchronous” Earth orbit, where the lander will check out its systems before eventually using its own propulsion to thrust itself free of Earth’s gravity well and into the Moon’s. It expects a nominal transit from Earth orbit to the lunar surface to take at least 20 days. The lander is designed to survive up to 12 days on the Moon, during which it will attempt to operate its onboard experiments, deploy both of its tiny rovers, and transmit all the data gathered back to Earth.

The startup initially [PDF] described its arrangements with SpaceX as contracts to launch two landers as secondary payloads on two Falcon 9 rockets. In its press releases, ispace no longer specifies whether the one-ton spacecraft will be the only payload on Falcon 9. It’s possible that HAKUTO-R M1 will be a secondary payload on SpaceX’s launch of the Eutelsat 10B geostationary communications satellite, which is currently scheduled NET November 11th. In a rare move, SpaceX will reportedly expend Falcon 9’s reusable first-stage booster during the mission, leaving much more performance on the table.
Update: Launch photographer Ben Cooper reports that Falcon 9’s reusable booster will fly back to the Florida coast to land on land after launching HAKUTO-R, strongly implying that the Moon lander will actually be the rocket’s only payload.
ispace has raised approximately $210 million since it was founded in 2010 – coincidentally the same year that the US Congress forced NASA to begin developing the SLS rocket. 12 years later, there’s a chance that the first launches of SLS and HAKUTO-R could occur hours apart.
When it rolls out next month, NASA’s SLS rocket will be heading to the launch pad for the fourth time. SLS and Orion have had a less-than-smooth journey to their first launch, suffering half a decade of delays and running tens of billions of dollars over budget as a result. Once all the pieces had arrived in Florida, it took NASA and its contractors about 12 months to finish assembling SLS and Orion and begin testing the integrated rocket.
Since integrated testing began in April 2022, SLS has undergone five publicized wet dress rehearsal (WDR) tests in April, June, and September. It also attempted to launch twice on August 29th and September 3rd, although both attempts were arguably a continuation of WDR testing in everything but name. But it appears that when the rocket rolls out for the fourth time, NASA will have finally completed nearly all of the testing it should have finished before loudly proclaiming that its “Mega Moon Rocket” was ready to launch back in August.
The SLS launch debut will almost certainly take precedence over any other Cape Canaveral launch around the same time, including HAKUTO-R M1, but SpaceX could potentially launch the Moon lander roughly one day before or after NASA’s Moon rocket.
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.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
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.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
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.