News
SpaceX’s partial Falcon 9 landing failure could delay next West Coast launch
According to statements made by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and media outlet CBC, the launch of the agency’s next-generation Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) – a trio of Earth observation satellites weighing >4200 kg (9300 lbs) – has been “postponed … indefinitely” as a consequence of SpaceX’s first failed Falcon 9 booster landing since 2016.
Offering a rare glimpse into some of the extensive planning that goes on behind the scenes to make commercial rocket launches happen, CSA has indicated that the booster it planned to launch on – Falcon 9 B1050 – suffered an untimely (partial) demise during a recovery attempt shortly after successfully launching the CRS-16 Cargo Dragon mission on December 5th, 2018. While the booster shockingly was returned to dry land mostly intact after landing in the Atlantic, SpaceX and CSA must now settle on a different Falcon 9 to launch the mission.
A problem with a SpaceX booster rocket has postponed the launch of a $1 billion Canadian satellite program indefinitely. https://t.co/45qirdId5j @DeanBeeby
— CBC News (@CBCNews) January 15, 2019
Goldilocks and the Falcon boosters
While it doesn’t look like there are only three possible rocket options for the Radarsat constellation and SpaceX to choose from, the situation of picking a new booster this late in the launch flow is far less simple than it might initially seem. First and foremost, SpaceX likely needs to do its best to accommodate the preferences of customers CSA and MDA (MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.) regardless of how disruptive they may be. Originally targeted for sometime in November 2018, RCM’s launch slipped several months to the second half of February 2019 due to what CSA described as “higher priority missions [for]the US Government and a backlog of launches from…Vandenberg” late last year.
While that alone does not point directly towards any obvious explanations, CBC reporter Dean Beeby’s implication that the mission’s launch is now “postponed…indefinitely” offers a hint of an answer, although it could also be manufactured hyperbole where there actually is none. If CSA actually indicated that the launch is now postponed indefinitely, the only clear explanation for a launch delay greater than a month or so as a result of Falcon 9 B1050’s unplanned unavailability would lie in some unique aspect of that particular Falcon 9 booster.
Although each rocket SpaceX builds can be quite different from each other in terms of general quirks and bugs, the only obvious difference between B1050 and any other flight-proven Falcon 9 booster in SpaceX’s fleet was its low-energy CRS-16 trajectory, something that would have enabled a uniquely gentle reentry and landing shortly after launch. In other words, likely out of heaps of caution and conservatism if it is the case, customers CSA and MDA may have requested (or contractually demanded) that SpaceX launch the Radarsat constellation on a flight-proven Falcon 9 with as little wear and tear as possible, in which case B1050 would have been hard to beat.
“Unfortunately, the landing of [Falcon 9 B1050] was unsuccessful, preventing SpaceX from recuperating the reusable components for the launch of RCM. We continue to work closely with MDA and SpaceX to confirm a launch date for RCM.” – Spokesperson Audrey Barbier, Canadian Space Agency (CSA), 01/15/2019
If the customers remained steadfast in their (speculated) request for a gently-used flight-proven Falcon 9 even after B1050’s partial landing failure, the next most comparable booster would be Falcon 9 B1051 after launching the first orbital Crew Dragon mission sometime no earlier than (NET) February 2019. Aside from B1051, there will be no obvious booster alternative available for at least several months after Crew Dragon’s launch debut, unless NASA requests that its next contracted Cargo Dragon mission (CRS-17) launch on a new Falcon 9 rocket in March 2019.
Engines stabilized rocket spin just in time, enabling an intact landing in water! Ships en route to rescue Falcon. pic.twitter.com/O3h8eCgGJ7
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2018
Warmer…
If a less lightly-used booster becomes an option for CSA/MDA, there are immediately multiple clear options available as long as SpaceX is will to accept possible delays to subsequent launches to quickly reassign a flight-proven Falcon 9. Falcon 9 B1046 – the first SpaceX rocket ever to launch three orbital-class missions – is being refurbished at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, California facilities a few hundred miles south of Vandenberg. B1047 completed its second successful launch in November 2018 and is being refurbished – along with the twice-flown B1048 – in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Finally, Falcon 9 B1049 completed its second successful launch just days ago (January 11th) and is being processed off of drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) at this very moment.
B1047 or B1048 have likely been assigned to the imminent NET February 18th launch of Indonesian commsat PSN-6 and SpaceIL’s Beresheet Moon lander, meaning that the best possible option for Radarsat – short of swallowing months of additional delays – is a decision between B1047/B1048 or B1046, with B1049 also a candidate if a slip into March or April is an option. Still, all of those options would require Canada and MDA to fly on a Falcon 9’s third (or fourth) launch, perhaps an unacceptable compromise or perceived risk for certain customers.
-
- 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 landed at LZ-4 after its second launch and is now being refurbished on the opposite coast. (SpaceX)
Meanwhile, schedule pressures have meant that SpaceX is pushing as hard as possible to prepare three new Block 5 Falcon Heavy boosters for the giant rocket’s second and third launches, scheduled as early as March and April 2019. While unconfirmed, it appears that SpaceX may have chosen to manufacture all three of those boosters one after the other, meaning that the company’s Hawthorne factory would have been primarily focused on delivering those rockets for at least 2-3 months start to finish. In short, it does not appear that there is or will be an unflown Falcon 9 booster available for Radarsat anytime soon.
Whether the customers wait for a new booster to be produced, wait for Crew Dragon’s first launch to wrap up, or accept being the third or fourth launch of a well-scorched Falcon 9, RCM’s next published launch target should offer a hint as to how CSA, MDA, and SpaceX ultimately decided to respond to Falcon 9 B1050’s dip in the Atlantic OCean.
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
