News
SpaceX’s Pacific rocket recovery fleet heads to sea for Western Block 5 debut
SpaceX drone ship Just Read The Instructions was spotted by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin departing Port of Los Angeles on the evening of July 22, while fairing catcher Mr Steven completed final checkouts and full installation of his massive new net, hopefully just days away from the first successful fairing catch. Their call to action, Iridium NEXT-7, is scheduled to launch NET 04:39 PDT/11:39 UTC, July 25th.
Over the course of July, both vessels have been undergoing significant maintenance and upgrades. Mr Steven’s was perhaps the most extreme – his original arm and net apparatus was removed in its entirety and replaced with a massively upgraded system of arms, booms, and a brand new net, well and truly expanding the vessel’s catching area by a factor of four.
With a new net and arm span stretching at least 60 meters by 60 meters, Mr Steven’s improved fairing catching mechanism is now almost the same size as the landing area aboard SpaceX’s two autonomous spaceport drone ships – roughly 200ft x 300ft (60m x 90m). While presumably a pure coincidence, the size parallels apparently necessary to recover two very different components of Falcon 9 – the booster rocket and the payload fairings – is rather satisfying.
A last hurrah?
Intriguingly, ASDS Just Read The Instructions has stoically remained at SpaceX’s Port of San Pedro, CA berth for more than nine months, wholly unused despite the fact that the company has completed four additional missions since its last tasked booster recovery (October 2017, Iridium-3). It’s not a coincidence that all four of those Vandenberg AFB missions featured boosters that had already successfully launched and landed once before – SpaceX made a habit over the last four months of intentionally expending Falcon 9 boosters after their second missions, even when the launch conditions would allow for booster recovery.
This mission will thankfully bring an end to that understandable but still-painful practice, thanks to Iridium-7’s new Block 5 booster, B1048. Many of the months JRTI spent at berth were without the pod thrusters the drone ship needs to keep itself at the proper landing point once at sea, but JRTI departed the port with a full complement of four blue thrusters on the evening of July 22. However, it’s unclear how much SpaceX will need the vessel within just a month or two from today.
-
- A SpaceX technician works aboard the rain-soaked drone ship Just Read The Instructions, March 2018. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- More recently, all four thrusters were installed and tested both while berthed and at sea. May 11. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- JRTI captured conducting sea-trials by photographer Chuck Bennett. (Instagram, @chuckbennett)
At long last, SpaceX’s planned, built, and now-patiently-waiting West Coast landing zone is finally finished, permitted, and in the green to begin supporting Falcon 9 return-to-launch-site (RTLS) recoveries at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Effectively a basic copy of SpaceX’s now well-worn landing zone pair in Cape Canaveral, Florida, the company’s VAFB LZ-1 has been hinted at in two FCC launch permits for launches as early as the first and last weeks of September. Aside from Iridium launches, of which just one will remain after Iridium-7, nearly all of SpaceX’s West Coast launches are for fairly lightweight payloads that should easily allow Falcon 9 RTLS recoveries.
-
- Iridium-1’s successful and scenic landing on Pacific drone ship JRTI, January 2017. This could be an increasingly rare occurrence in the Pacific, thanks to SpaceX’s new land-based landing zone. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s West Coast landing zone is preparing for its debut, currently NET October 6th 2018. (Pauline Acalin/Teslarati)
Environmental conditions mean that JRTI will still be needed regularly for a handful of months (March through June) to avoid disrupting baby seals (pups, technically), but the vessel’s recovery efforts this week may be one of the last ‘off-season’ examples for months or even years to come. On the plus side, RTLS recovery at SpaceX’s VAFB landing zone will be an absolute dream for recovery technicians, as the LZ is directly beside the launch pad and hangar, where recovered Block 5 boosters can likely be refurbished or at least easily packaged and shipped to the Hawthorne factory.
For more sneak peeks and exclusive behind-the-scenes footage of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet, including drone ship Just Read The Instructions, be sure to subscribe to our exclusive membership program!
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
