News
SpaceX's next Crew Dragon launch is delayed but that's actually good news
NASA says that SpaceX’s next big Crew Dragon flight test has slipped a bit further into 2020, a counterintuitively positive sign that the human-rated spacecraft’s next launch is firmly scheduled for the first month of the next decade.
Known as Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, SpaceX opted to include the mission in its Commercial Crew contract, a decision NASA chose to leave up to its providers. Boeing, for example, chose not to perform a real-world in-flight abort test of its Starliner spacecraft, instead relying on a pad abort test and digital modeling to determine the spacecraft’s capabilities. NASA allowed this flexibility because it believes – at least theoretically – that it should be possible to determine whether a spacecraft can perform the most challenging abort scenarios without actually doing full-fidelity flight tests.
Given that NASA chose to perform an extremely expensive full-fidelity in-flight abort test with its own Orion spacecraft just a few months ago, one can’t exactly say that the space agency has chosen to reap what it’s sown, but with any luck, the Starliner spacecraft will never have to perform such an abort and find out how close Boeing’s modeling is to reality.
It’s also worth noting that despite the fact SpaceX elected to perform an extra abort test that will likely destroy an entire Falcon 9 rocket, Crew Dragon development will cost NASA $2 billion (40%) less than Starliner, while each operational Crew Dragon launch will also cost some $250 million (39%) less than a comparable Starliner launch.
As of December 18th, NASA says that SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test has slipped a week from January 4th to January 11th, 2020. Counterintuitively, that delay is actually an extremely encouraging sign that Crew Dragon’s next launch is quite firmly set for the first month of 2020. For reference, as NASA and SpaceX approached Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 orbital launch debut earlier this year, the mission was initially set for January 17th. Around three weeks later, NASA announced that Demo-1 had slipped to no earlier than (NET) “February”. Four weeks after that delay, NASA once again announced another delay to March 2nd, which would turn out to be the day that Crew Dragon really did reach orbit for the first time.
On the other hand, IFA – Crew Dragon’s second launch – had its first firm launch date (January 4th) announced by NASA on December 6th, 2019. Less than two weeks later, NASA says that the launch date has slipped by exactly one week to January 11th, less than four weeks from today. It’s entirely possible that SpaceX’s IFA test will slip further into 2020 in the coming weeks, but compared to Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 mission, both NASA and SpaceX appear to be far more confident in the schedule for Crew Dragon’s second launch.
Regardless of when exactly it lifts off, Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort is going to be an extremely challenging test for the spacecraft. Designed to simulate a near-worst-case abort scenario during launch, SpaceX will essentially trick Dragon into believing that Falcon 9 has failed around a minute and a half after launch. At that point, the rocket and spacecraft will be traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s, 1900 mph) and experiencing what is known as Max Q, the point of peak aerodynamic stress (referring to heating, buffeting, pressure, and more).
At that exact point, Crew Dragon capsule C205 will ignite all eight of its SuperDraco abort engines, almost instantaneously producing 130,000 lbf (570 kN) of thrust to send the spacecraft almost a kilometer (0.5 mi) away from Falcon 9 in just a few seconds. If Crew Dragon survives the ordeal, it will quickly detach its trunk section, flip around to face its heat shield towards the ground, and ultimately deploy parachutes before gently landing in the Atlantic Ocean.
SpaceX plans to recover and reuse the otherwise orbit-worthy capsule on a future mission, likely one of the company’s upcoming CRS2 space station resupply launches. Finally, if everything goes exactly as planned during the In-Flight Abort test and both NASA and SpaceX see no issues with the flown hardware or data the test produces, Crew Dragon Demo-2 – the spacecraft’s first astronaut launch – could potentially be ready for flight as early as February or March 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
