News
Second SpaceX Block 5 rocket spied in Texas, solidifying May 4 debut
Following reports from SpaceX’s Hans Koenigsmann that the company’s newest Falcon 9 Block 5 soared through its first hot-fire testing faster than any of the rocket’s previous upgrades, the second Block 5 booster has been spotted vertical, prepping for its own round of static-fire testing in McGregor, Texas.
After a thorough period of tests for the first Block 5 booster B1046, spotted partway through by NASASpaceflight’s forum member Gary Blair (ScaryDare), the presence of what can only be B1047 backs up Hans’ comments beyond a shadow of doubt. B1046 is now understood to be awaiting its inaugural on-pad static fire and launch at SpaceX’s Pad 39A, currently scheduled for NET May 4. While not entirely clear at this point, B1047 will most likely return to California after its test campaign in Texas, supplying SpaceX’s Vandenberg AFB launch site with a highly reusable booster.
-
- SpaceX’s second Block 5 booster was spotted vertical at the company’s McGregor, TX testing facilities. That booster has since been shipped to Florida for a mid-July launch, with B1048 now in its place as of June 15. (Aero Photo)
-
- SpaceX’s second Falcon 9 Block 5 booster was spied by an aerial photographer in Texas, April 17. (Aero Photo)
-
- B1047 captured testing in McGregor, Texas, April 2018. (Teslarati/Aero Photo)
If flight-testing shows that Block 5 is as easily and rapidly reusable as SpaceX engineers and techs intended, it’s entirely possible that B1047 will become the de facto Falcon 9 booster for most – if not all – upcoming VAFB missions, at least until additional boosters are completed, tested, and readied for flight operations. In a sense, SpaceX could be just weeks away from orbital rocket activities that all but mirror the sort of attitudes given towards modern aircraft, where one or several aircraft services contain specific routes and airports – or orbits and launch pads, in the case of Falcon 9.
In the history of reusable launch vehicles, the Space Shuttle is the only example that ever came close to the sort of regular reflights promised by Block 5 (and apparently even Block 4). If all goes as planned, the booster that launched TESS (B1045) will complete its second mission as early as June 28, requiring refurbishment in as few as 72 days, well over twice as fast as most previous reflights. Around the program’s cadence peak in the 1980s, Space Shuttle Atlantis flew two orbital missions in 54 days, and Falcon 9 Block 4 was by no means designed for rapid or repeated reuse and refurbishment.
-
- The same April 2018 flight captured what appears to be a Block 5 landing leg undergoing testing at a specially-designed test stand. (Aero Photo)
-
- Block 5 landing legs will be capable of retracting, much more efficient than the current process of removing each leg individually once boosters are returned to land or their port. They can be expected to look very similar to Block 4 legs shown here, albeit all black.(Tom Cross)
-
- SpaceX engineers and technicians have begun an aggressive campaign hoping to recover and reuse fairings ASAP. (Tom Cross)
If Block 5 becomes twice as reusable as Block 4, it will effectively usher in a new era of orbital access – Falcon 9’s booster accounts for over 70% of the rocket’s entire cost, and the payload fairing (~10%) is well on its way to recovery and reuse. Before the introduction of the fully-reusable BFR spaceship and booster, CEO Elon Musk recently confirmed that SpaceX will attempt to recover Falcon 9’s second stage, the only other critical component of the rocket that is now expended outright, mission permitting.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BhoeF43lxoX/?taken-by=erikkuna
Follow us for live updates, behind-the-scenes sneak peeks, and a sea of beautiful photos from our East and West coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
