News
SpaceX’s second Falcon 9 Block 5 booster reuse closes in as rocket refurb continues
Scheduled on October 7th, SpaceX is roughly three weeks out from the next routine launch of Falcon 9, set to carry the ~2800 kg (6200 lb) Argentinian satellite SAOCOM-1A into a low polar orbit from the company’s Vandenberg Air Force Base launch facilities.
Cocooned inside Falcon 9’s payload fairing during the final days of August, the Earth observation satellite’s launch will mark a number of exciting milestones for SpaceX, including the second reuse of a Block 5 booster and the debut of a California-based rocket landing zone barely 400m (1400ft) from the launch pad.
Última foto del satélite argentino SAOCOM 1A en Tierra! Los equipos de la CONAE, VENG, @invapargentina y @CNEAok finalizaron la integración y encapsulado del SAOCOM 1A en la cofia del lanzador Falcon 9 de @SpaceX. El satélite está listo! Comienzan preparativos de lanzamiento! pic.twitter.com/pwwj0NYIwE
— CONAE (@CONAE_Oficial) September 14, 2018
Previously tasked with launching Iridium’s 7th group of 10 NEXT satellites on July 25th, Falcon 9 B1048 has been assigned as SAOCOM 1A’s ride to orbit, originally expected to refly as early as September 5th and September 28th. Despite the delays, it still appears that B1048 will easily snag the SpaceX record for second fastest booster turnaround – 74 days compared to Block 5 booster B1045’s 71 days gap between launching NASA’s TESS and CRS-15 missions.
According to a number of comments from satellite engineers involved in the launch, most of the month-long slip rested on rocket availability, meaning that SpaceX was having some sort of difficulty with Falcon 9 components. Given photos and official comments showing that SAOCOM-1A was encapsulated in its payload fairing more than 5 weeks before launch (August 30th) and that Falcon 9 Block 5 is a fairly new launch vehicle, especially in a flight-proven configuration, the most logical explanation is that SpaceX is simply being extra cautious and thorough with B1048’s post-flight analysis and refurbishment.
It’s entirely possible that SpaceX engineers and technicians could have managed a ~40-day turnaround to make the original September 5 launch date, but it’s equally likely that some off-nominal characteristics were noted while the booster was being prepped for transport after craning off of drone ship Just Read The Instructions. In fact, B1048’s recovery operations were exceptionally lengthy and in-depth, including an extraordinary few hours during which technicians removed the booster’s Merlin 1D access panels, baring wholly-uncovered rocket engines in full view of a public area. Nothing equivalent has ever been observed over the course of more than a dozen Falcon booster recoveries, perhaps indicating some unique circumstances in the case of B1048.
-
- After launching in April 2018, B1045 landed on OCISLY and is being refurbished for a second launch in just 5 days, on June 29. (Tom Cross)
-
- An excellent look at Block 5 booster B1048’s aft, showing off two of four launch clamp attachment points. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX technicians reinstall Falcon 9 B1048’s Merlin bay covers after examining the interior for several hours. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s West Coast landing zone is preparing for its debut, currently NET October 6th 2018. (Pauline Acalin/Teslarati)
The most obvious explanation is that those publicly-visible inspections were used to judge whether the flight-proven booster could return directly to SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad or needed to make a stop at the company’s dedicated Hawthorne factory and refurbishment facilities. Judging from the month-long slip that transpired, it’s probable that the latter option was selected. Regardless, caution is key when a customer’s payload is on the line.
Once it makes its way to the launch pad for the second time, B1048 will have the opportunity to both become the first Block 5 booster to land on land and the first rocket ever to land at SpaceX’s West Coast Landing Zone (LZ), under construction/development for the last two or so years. Just like its Floridan twins, the California LZ will only be an option for particularly lightweight payloads and lower-energy launch profiles, of which SAOCOM 1A (and 1B) certainly fit the bill.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
