News
SpaceX has no plans to reuse Crew Dragon spaceships on NASA astronaut launches
According to program manager Kathy Lueders, SpaceX has chosen against reusing its upgraded Crew Dragon spaceships on NASA Commerical Crew Program (CCP) launches, even though NASA itself explicitly provided both CCP providers (Boeing and SpaceX) the option to propose reflights of crew capsules.
In fact, Boeing did just that with their CST-100 Starliner spacecraft, proposing to land Starliners on land (using airbags) and reuse the capsules repeatedly, up to 10 times each. While there is next to no official information on the matter, the question of what SpaceX is planning to do with its flight-proven Crew Dragon spacecraft is well worth puzzling over.
The Crew Dragon capsule for the SpaceX DM-1 mission will be launch ready by the end of September. pic.twitter.com/xsGw9fWkUG
— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) August 27, 2018
The future of flight-proven Dragon 2s
Speaking at the most recent (August 27) NASA Advisory Council meeting, Lueders specifically stated that SpaceX had proposed “a new vehicle every time for [NASA]”, although NASA specifically provided the option for either new or reflown hardware, similar to Commercial Cargo where SpaceX already routinely reflies both Falcon 9s and Cargo Dragons on official NASA resupply missions.
The fact that SpaceX already routinely reuses Cargo Dragons – and even does so atop flight-proven Falcon 9 rocket boosters – adds additional intrigue to this seemingly odd decision. However, in the context of other near-term plans for other Dragon-related activities, SpaceX’s choice to not (at least in the near-term) refly Crew Dragon capsules for crewed NASA launches makes more than a little sense.
-
- DM-1 seen conducting acoustic testing in Ohio. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon 9 B1051, DM-1’s rocket of choice, seen during construction in SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory. (SpaceX)
-
- (SpaceX)
-
- (SpaceX)
The single most obvious explanation can be found in SpaceX’s next Commercial Resupply Services contract (CRS-2), a similar follow-up to the CRS-1 contract SpaceX is currently launching Cargo Dragons under. Although SpaceX offered its Dragon 1 (already flying) as an option, NASA sided with Dragon 2 thanks to a number of unique and valuable capabilities offered by the upgraded craft. While no official detail has been released by NASA on the gritty specifics of those CRS-2 contracts, an April 2018 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) offers a bit more insight into SpaceX’s plans.
Although the OIG report in question never specifically states it, some of the language used to describe Dragon 2’s cargo configuration does seem to imply that Cargo Dragon 2s will predominately (if not exclusively) be derived as slightly-modified Crew Dragon capsules, seemingly indicating that SpaceX’s CRS-2 missions may only ever launch flight-proven Crew Dragon capsules. Depending on the extent of the disassembly required to remove the components described below, all other “modifications” are essentially one-and-done after the software and additional designs are completed. As such, it should be relatively straightforward to modify the vehicles between Crew and Cargo configurations.
-
- An overview of the expected modifications needed to turn a Crew Dragon into a Cargo Dragon 2. (NASA OIG)
This strategy would make a lot of sense: by using its Commercial Crew contract as a means to fund the construction of brand new Crew Dragon capsules and Falcon 9 rockets and then using those once flight-proven rockets and spacecraft for other NASA cargo launches, general commercial missions, and maybe even low Earth orbit tourism, SpaceX can likely extract as much value and utility as possible from that hardware.
Despite the fact that NASA in this situation would effectively be carrying a significant portion of SpaceX’s non-BFR production-related capital expenditure, the company’s CRS-2 and Commercial Crew contracts place its cargo and crew launch costs far below those of competitors Boeing, Orbital ATK (now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems), and Sierra Nevada. Overall, SpaceX’s launch costs to NASA range anywhere from 40-75% less than its three competitors’ best offerings, essentially invalidating any nitpicking over slight cost increases from CRS-1 to CRS-2.
Even if SpaceX never ends up reusing Crew Dragons on crewed NASA launches, NASA is still likely to benefit from lower costs derived by the partial modification and reuse of those same capsules and Falcon 9 boosters on CRS-2 cargo resupply missions.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
