News
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch may feature record-breaking center core landing
Thanks to a temporary reopening of the US federal government, SpaceX was finally able to continue the process of filing FCC and FAA paperwork needed to acquire permits for upcoming launches, including Falcon Heavy.
One such filing related to the first operational Falcon Heavy launch has revealed a fairly impressive statistic: comprised of three first stage boosters, SpaceX indicated that Falcon Heavy’s center core will attempt to land on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) nearly 1000 km (600 mi) away from its launch site, easily smashing the record for the greatest distance traveled by a Falcon booster in flight.
Of Course I Still Love You will be positioned a record ~965km downrange. That's nearly 300km further that the previous greatest distance of 681km, set during the Eutelsat-117WB mission in June 2016. (The landing was a failure, with the booster running out of LOX!) https://t.co/RECKjMtd37
— Gav Cornwell (@SpaceOffshore) January 28, 2019
The same FCC filings also revealed a No Earlier Than (NET) launch date: March 7, 2019. Originally targeted for mid to late February, the complexity and logistical challenges of building, shipping, testing, and delivering two side boosters, a center core, one upper stage, and a payload fairing from SpaceX’s California factory to its Texas test facilities and Florida launch pad unsurprisingly took a small toll on the launch’s aspirational schedule. Nevertheless, if the launch data actually holds to March 7th, SpaceX will not have missed the mark by much considering that this Falcon Heavy – based on new and more powerful Block 5 boosters – is likely a significant departure from the Block 2/Block 3 hardware that has flight heritage from the triple-booster rocket’s Feb. 2018 launch debut.

Just shy of a year after Falcon Heavy’s launch debut, it appears that the rocket’s second and third launches were pushed back by a fundamental lack of production capacity. In other words, SpaceX’s Hawthorne rocket factory simply had to focus on more critical priorities in the 6-9 months that followed the demo mission. At nearly the same time as Falcon Heavy was lifting off for the first time, SpaceX’s world-class production crew was in the midst of manufacturing the first upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 booster (B1046) and wrapped up final checkouts just 10 days after Heavy’s Feb. 6 launch debut, sending the pathfinder rocket to McGregor, Texas for the first static fire of a Block 5 booster.
In the meantime, SpaceX’s decision to intentionally expend otherwise recoverable reused Falcon boosters after their second launches meant that the company’s fleet of flightworthy rockets was rapidly approaching zero, a move CEO Elon Musk specifically indicated was meant to make room for Block 5, the future (and final form) of the Falcon family. SpaceX’s busy 2018 launch manifest and multiple critical missions for the US government were thus balanced on the success, reliability, and rapid production of a serious number of Merlin engines, boosters, and upper stages. This included B1051 – the first explicitly crew-rated Falcon 9 – and B1054, the first SpaceX rocket rated to launch high-value US military (specifically Air Force) satellites. However, SpaceX also needed to produce a cadre of Falcon 9 boosters capable of easy reuse to support the dozen or so other commercial launches on the manifest.
- Falcon 9 B1046 is processed in Port of LA shortly after its third successful launch and landing, December 2018. (Pauline Acalin)
- Falcon 9 B1047 is pictured here beneath an upper stage and satellite Es’hail-2 prior to its second launch. (Tom Cross)
- Falcon 9 B1048 returned to Port of Los Angeles aboard drone ship Just Read The Instructions after its first launch. July 27. (Pauline Acalin)
- Falcon 9 B1049 returned to Port of Los Angeles after its second successful launch and landing in four months. (Pauline Acalin)
- Falcon 9 B1050 is seen here just after liftoff. GPS III SV01’s Falcon 9 will feature no grid fins or landing legs. ☹ (Tom Cross)
- Falcon 9 B1051 and Crew Dragon vertical at Pad 39A. (SpaceX)
That gamble ultimately paid off, with Block 5 performing admirably and supporting a reasonable – if not record-breaking – rate of reuse. SpaceX successfully launched B1054 for the USAF, completed B1051 (now at Pad 39A awaiting NASA’s go-ahead), and built enough reusable Block 5 boosters to support nine additional commercial missions in 2018. In hindsight, barring an assumption of a truly miraculous and unprecedented Falcon booster production rate, Falcon Heavy’s next launches were almost guaranteed to occur no fewer than 6-12 months after the rocket’s launch debut – SpaceX’s entire launch business depended on building 5+ unrelated Falcon 9 boosters, while Falcon Heavy customers Arabsat and the USAF were unlikely to be swayed to launch on flight-proven hardware so early into Block 5’s career.
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1048483536917823488
All cylinders firing
Once Falcon 9 B1054 departed SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory (see above) in early October, it appears that the company’s production team pivoted directly to integrating and shipping the next three (or more) Falcon Heavy boosters back to back for the rocket’s second and third launches. The first new side booster departed the factory in mid-November, followed by a second side booster in early December and a (presumed but highly likely) center core at the turn of 2019. Both side boosters have been static-fired in Texas and are now at SpaceX’s Florida facilities, while the center core either just completed its Texas static fire testing or is already on its way East.
- SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Block 5 side booster is pictured here in Texas in November 2018. (Teslarati/Aero Photo)
- The second (and third) flight of Falcon Heavy is even closer to reality as a new side booster heads to Florida after finishing static fire tests in Texas. (Reddit /u/e32revelry)
- SpaceX Facebook group member Joshua Murrah captured the second Falcon Heavy side booster to arrive in Florida in the last month. (Joshua Murrah, 01/17/19)
- The next Falcon Heavy’s first side booster delivery was caught by several onlookers around December 21. (Instagram)
- A booster – likely the next Falcon Heavy center core – was vertical at McGregor’s S1 static fire stand. (Instagram /u/tcryguy)
- A booster – either Falcon Heavy’s next center core or a new Falcon 9 – was vertical at SpaceX’s McGregor, TX test facilities on Jan 28. (Instagram /u/n75sd)
- A diagram from a recent SpaceX document offers an idea of what Falcon Heavy Block 5 will look like. (SpaceX)
Once the center core and upper stage make their way to SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A, the company’s technicians and engineers will be able to integrate the second Falcon Heavy to have ever existed in preparation for a critical static fire test. That could occur as early as February, although the launch debut of Crew Dragon (DM-1) – now NET March from Pad 39A after a relentless string of slips – will likely take precedence over Falcon Heavy and could thus directly interfere with its launch, as the launch pad and transporter/erector (T/E) has to undergo at least a few days of modifications to switch between Falcon 9 and Heavy.
Regardless, the next two Falcon Heavy launches will be well worth the wait. SpaceX’s FCC filings indicate that the center core may travel nearly 1000 km (600 mi) East of Pad 39A to land on drone ship OCISLY after launch, smashing the previous record attempt – during the June 2016 launch of Eutelsat 117WB – of ~700 km (430 mi). That Falcon 9 booster – albeit a less-powerful Block 2 variant – was unsuccessful in its landing attempt, running out of oxidizer seconds before landing. Falcon Heavy’s debut center core also happened to suffer a wholly different but no less fatal anomaly during landing, causing it to miss the drone ship and slam into the Atlantic Ocean at almost half the speed of sound (300 mph/480 km/h).
Looks like early liquid oxygen depletion caused engine shutdown just above the deck pic.twitter.com/Sa6uCkpknY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2016
Known for their rocket performance estimates, NASASpaceflight forum user “Orbiter” first pointed out the impressive distance – gathered by mapping coordinates included in SpaceX’s Jan. 28th FCC filing – and estimated that the Falcon Heavy center booster flying a trajectory as implied could be traveling as fast as ~3.5 km/s (2.2 mi/s) at main engine cut-off (MECO), the point at which the booster separates from the upper stage and fairing. This would be a nearly unprecedented velocity for any Falcon booster, let alone a booster with plans to land after launch. Falcon 9 MECO typically occurs at velocities between 1.5 and 2.5 km/s for recoverable missions, while even the recent expendable GPS III launch saw F9 S1’s engines cut off around 2.7 km/s.
Whether that MECO velocity estimate is correct, Falcon Heavy’s NET March launch of the ~6000 kg (13,300 lb) Arabsat 6A satellite is likely to be an exceptionally hot reentry and recovery for the center core, while the rocket’s duo of side boosters will attempt a repeat of the debut mission’s spectacular double-landing at LZ-1.
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.
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













