News
SpaceX record-setting booster returns to Port in remarkable condition (photos)
SpaceX has successfully recovered its second Falcon 9 in less than a week. Just four days after it launched, booster B1049 returned to sailed into Port Canaveral. The veteran booster is the first to launch and successfully land five times. On June 3, at 9:25 p.m. EDT (0125 GMT on June 4), B1049 took to the skies, delivering another batch of Starlink satellites into orbit.
Now, just three days after a flawless mission, the veteran rocket sailed triumphantly into port. Perched atop SpaceX’s newly remodeled drone ship, Just Read the Instructions (JRTI), B1049’s exterior was visibly more charred after its most recent trip through the atmosphere. This successful landing marks the first mission that JRTI was active in the Atlantic Ocean, as well as the third successful sea recovery in a row for SpaceX.
So far this year, SpaceX has successfully launched nine boosters this year. All but two of them have been recovered—two failed to land on the drone ship. One of those botched attempts was due to some residual cleaning agents trapped inside the engine. That booster, B1048, was SpaceX’s only other booster (so far) to fly five times.
But it surely won’t be the last. B1051 has already completed four successful missions and could see flight again soon. SpaceX has at least two other launches planned for June, including another Starlink launch and the launch of a GPS satellite for the Air Force. That flight will be on a new booster, B1060, per the Air Force’s request.
As it stands now, government payloads require SpaceX to use a new booster, versus a previously flown one. That was also the case for NASA’s commercial crew program. On May 30, astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley flew to the International Space Station atop a Falcon 9 rocket. The booster, which returned to Port just a few days ago, what a shiny new booster. However, in a recent development, NASA amended the agreement, saying that SpaceX could use previously flown boosters as well as reuse its Crew Dragon spacecraft.
Currently, SpaceX reuses its cargo version of Dragon, but each upgraded cargo (and Crew) variant can be reused as many as five times. Each booster is currently rated for ten flights, with minimal refurbishments in between.
Flying for the 5th time, the #SpaceX #Falcon9 launches from SLC-40 to bring another batch of #Starlink sats to orbit! The first stage was also recovered, marking the first time a booster has landed after 5 flights! pic.twitter.com/KcsNecEoI3
— Richard Angle (@RDAnglePhoto) June 4, 2020
SpaceX’s fleet of veteran rockets has dwindled a bit, with the loss of B1048 and B1056. Those losses came on the heels of two planned expenditures: B1046 and B1047. B1046was purposefully detonated as part of the company’s In-flight Abort test that occurred in January. That test was a lead up to the Demo-2 mission and proved that SpaceX’s launch escape system worked while B1047 carried the AMOS-17 satellite into orbit and was expended after depositing the satellite into space.
However, the California-based rocket builder should have some new Falcons rolling off the assembly line this summer, which will help support its ambitious Starlink launch manifest. This year, SpaceX has launched six Starlink missions, with at least one more planned for June, possibly two.
To date, SpaceX has launched a total of 482 Starlink satellites, but the company needs between 400-800 satellites on orbit to begin rolling out minimal coverage. To provide the coverage it wants, SpaceX is going to have to keep up the launch pace. And to do so, it will test the reusability factor of its rockets.
So far, we’ve seen two rockets fly five times, but when will B1049 fly a sixth time? How soon will we see a booster reach the 10-flight mark? What sort of refurbishments will it need then? With many more Starlink flights on deck, it will be interesting to see which boosters fly on which missions.
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
