News
SpaceX's latest reusable rocket booster returns to port to prepare for next launch
The first new Falcon 9 booster SpaceX has debuted in almost half a year safely returned to port after a successful first launch and landing, setting the reusable rocket up to fly again in the near future.
On December 5th, after a brief 24-hour weather-related delay, new Falcon 9 booster B1059 lifted off on its first mission, successfully sending flight-proven Cargo Dragon capsule C106 to orbit for the third time before the rocket slowed itself down and landed on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY).
Over the next three or so days, the SpaceX spacecraft gradually boosted and tweaked its orbit to rendezvous with the International Space Station (ISS) and ultimately began its ISS approach and berthing maneuvers on December 8th. A few hours after that, ISS astronauts successfully ‘caught’ Dragon with the station’s massive robotic arm and gently berthed the spacecraft at an open port.
Less than a day before Dragon arrived at the ISS, effectively completing the majority of its CRS-19 resupply mission, the Falcon 9 booster that launched the spacecraft wrapped up a successful launch debut by returning to a different kind of port. Falcon 9 B1059 returned to Port Canaveral aboard drone ship OCISLY on the morning of December 7th and was quickly released from SpaceX’s robotic Octagrabber robot and lifted onto dry land.
SpaceX’s 13th successful Falcon booster recovery of 2019, B1059’s return to port also marked the first flight of a new Falcon booster since June 25th – almost half a year prior. By the numbers, B1059 was subjected to a relatively gentle atmospheric reentry prior to landing aboard OCISLY, meaning that it should be easier for SpaceX technicians and engineers to recertify the rocket and turn it around for its next launch.
Depending on where SpaceX and NASA stand, the booster’s second launch could happen anywhere from 2-4 months from now. Given that NASA currently allows SpaceX to fly reused boosters on NASA missions only if those boosters have exclusively flown NASA missions in the past, B1059 could end up supporting CRS-20, SpaceX’s next and last Cargo Dragon (Dragon 1) mission. CRS-20 is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) March 2020 and will be followed by the launch debut of Crew Dragon’s Cargo variant as soon as August 2020, another possibility for B1059’s second flight.
However, if SpaceX follows in the footsteps of CRS-19 and instead prioritizes rapid customer launches over saving a given gently-used booster for another NASA mission, B1059 could be a prime candidate for an extremely rapid turnaround, perhaps supporting an internal SpaceX Starlink launch or any number of other customer satellite launches in early 2020. On the other hand, it’s possible that B1059 suffered an unusually damaging reentry for unknown reasons, although it’s hard to judge from photos and a layperson perspective alone.
From a few angles, it almost appears as if B1059’s white paint was completely burned or scoured off in places, leaving a distinct transition between the edge of remaining paint and the booster’s distinctly metallic-looking skin underneath it. Falcon 9’s main structure is almost entirely built out of a high-performance aluminum-lithium alloy and sealed (and partially shielded) with a multilayer temperature and corrosion-resistant coating. If B1059’s tank coating was indeed partially burned off during reentry, SpaceX will almost certainly have to perform uniquely detailed inspections to verify the structural integrity of its propellant tanks, perhaps preventing a rapid (record-breaking) turnaround.
Either way, Falcon 9 B1059 was quickly lifted off of OCISLY and technicians even managed to retract all four of the new booster’s deployable landing legs, a great sign that SpaceX is confident that the booster is in fine shape. With the addition of B1059, SpaceX’s fleet of flight-proven, flightworthy Falcon 9 boosters is now eight strong – nine if Crew Dragon’s unflown Demo-2 booster is included. That fleet will continue to grow as SpaceX gradually introduces new boosters for increasingly rare military and NASA missions.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
