News
SpaceX rocket nosecone catch years in the making caught on camera
In a milestone more than three years in the making, SpaceX has successfully caught both halves of a Falcon 9 rocket’s payload fairing (i.e. nosecone) and shared videos of the historic feat.
Meanwhile, twin ships GO Ms. Tree and GO Ms. Chief returned to Port Canaveral before dawn on July 22nd with their trophies safely in hand. After years of development, at least a dozen failed catch attempts, numerous soft ocean landings, and the introduction of a second identical recovery ship, SpaceX has finally proven that a full rocket fairing can be recovered for (relatively) easy reuse.
Ironically, just eight months ago, SpaceX reused an orbital-class payload fairing for the first time, proving that fairings can be recovered and reused even if they fail to land in a recovery ship’s net. As such, the milestone is slightly less monumental than it otherwise could have been – but that’s not a bad thing, in this case. Most importantly, the successful catch of both halves of a Falcon fairing serves as a reminder of SpaceX’s extraordinary tenacity in the face of repeated failures and the reality that – given enough time and resources – the company almost invariably achieves its goals.
In the scope of orbital-class rocket recovery and reusability, payload fairings – nosecones that protect payloads from the atmosphere and environment and deploy several minutes after launch – rarely register. Relative to launch vehicle stages, the fairing typically represents a small fraction of the overall rocket’s cost. However, when built almost entirely out of carbon fiber composites to save as much weight as possible, they can require an outsized amount of labor and production time. At the same time, for a company like SpaceX that has already effectively solved the problem of routine booster recovery and reuse, a part that may have once represented a small fraction of launch costs can quickly become a major portion.
For Falcon 9, with the booster representing something like 65% of the rocket’s material cost, the payload fairing’s share of overall launch cost with a reused booster can quickly balloon from 10% to ~30%. Of course, those savings really only register from an internal perspective, which is precisely way SpaceX has continued to invest in fairing reuse after years with minimal success. Cutting ~30% off the material cost of the dozens to hundreds of Starlink launches planned over the next several years could easily save SpaceX hundreds of millions of dollars.
As such, SpaceX continues to reap the benefits of a healthy, industry-leading commercial launch business, more or less allowing it to pay for the production of rockets and facilities by launching a few commercial missions before moving on to many, many more Starlink launches. Up to now, only Falcon boosters have been able to take advantage of that unique opportunity, but SpaceX has very recently begun to reuse payload fairings – also frequently debuting on commercial missions. As of July 23rd, SpaceX has reused Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy fairings three times, all on Starlink satellite launches.
On July 20th, Falcon 9 booster B1058 lifted off for the second time after a record-breaking turnaround, carrying South Korea’s ANASIS II military communications satellite and a fresh payload fairing atop a new upper stage. Simultaneously breaking a drought of fairing catches, GO Ms. Tree and GO Ms. Chief successfully caught both halves of said payload fairing in their respective nets for the first time ever. Protected from saltwater immersion that can easily corrode the aluminum both inside and outside the fairings, the successful catch all but guarantees that SpaceX will be able to quickly and easily reuse this fairing on a future Starlink mission.
Two simultaneously successful catches after 12 attempts – three successful – in ~30 months is either an extraordinary fluke or a sign that SpaceX may have solved fairing recovery after years of hard work and iterative improvement. SpaceX’s next firm launch is scheduled no earlier than July 30th and another Starlink mission could potentially happen between now and then, so the company should have several attempts to test its fairing recovery luck in the near future.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
