News
SpaceX’s second dedicated USAF mission targets Dec. 2018 for GPS satellite launch
One of a number of 2018 SpaceX missions pushed into this year’s fourth quarter, SpaceX’s second-ever dedicated US Air Force payload is tracking towards a tentative mid-December launch, hopefully kicking off the deployment of the first ten third-generation GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites.
Set to launch the first and second GPS satellites on upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets, SpaceX and the USAF could potentially decide to fly one or several of the company’s contracted GPS missions on flight-proven boosters.
Air Force reports first GPS III spacecraft — nicknamed “Vespucci” in honor of Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci — has arrived in Titusville to prepare for December launch on SpaceX Falcon 9. pic.twitter.com/WbJgnyYWgl
— James Dean (@flatoday_jdean) August 22, 2018
Designed and built by Lockheed Martin, each of the first group of a dozen satellites will weigh approximately 3900 kg (8900 lb) and will be placed in a circular orbit 20,000 km (12,500 mi) above Earth’s surface, resulting in one completed orbit every 12 hours. Both as a result of each satellite’s significant mass and orbit requirement and the desire to spread risk over multiple launches, the first eight GPS Block IIIA spacecraft will ride into space on their own dedicated launch vehicles – five aboard Falcon 9, one on a ULA Delta IV, and the rest yet to be determined.
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 was certified to launch national security-sensitive USAF payloads in May 2015 after spending years fighting for the reintroduction of competition into the Department of Defense’s rocket launch procurement apparatus, killed back in the mid-2000s when Lockheed Martin and Boeing merged their space subsidiaries into the United Launch Alliance despite protests from NASA and some in the DoD.
SN Military Space | Air Force wants new GPS in orbit before year’s end • DoD big on OTAs • Space Force by 2020 a long shot – https://t.co/SKTAuJefRy pic.twitter.com/VV0JZi1hFD
— SpaceNews (@SpaceNews_Inc) August 28, 2018
That launch is now aiming for December 15th, 2018, although such a specific date nearly three and a half months out should be treating as purely for planning purposes. Originally planned to launch on a ULA Delta IV rocket, the USAF decided (for unknown reasons) to switch the order of launch, making SpaceX the launch provider for the first and second spacecraft, with ULA following up on the third launch. In March 2018, SpaceX was additionally awarded one more GPS IIIA launch with the option for two more, at a total contract cost of roughly $290 million or ~$97 million apiece. Of the remaining four satellites to be launched after Space Vehicle 06 (SV06) reaches orbit, contracts have yet to be competed, although that process is likely to begin within a year or so.
-
- It’s currently unclear whether B1046 or B1048 will become the first SpaceX rocket to fly three times. (Tom Cross)
-
- The second Block 5 booster, B1047, debuted at LC-40 on July 21. (Tom Cross)
-
- The scale of Falcon Heavy. (Photo: Tom Cross)
Barring any unforeseen developments or anomalies, SpaceX’s December launch of GPS IIIA SV01 ought to kick off a series of Falcon 9 GPS missions every 4-6 months between now and 2021 or 2022. After SV08 is launched sometime in those final years, the US Air Force will open competition slightly further, allowing launch providers SpaceX, ULA, and perhaps even Blue Origin to offer multi-satellite launches on their more powerful rocket offerings, including Falcon Heavy, heavier Atlas 5 variants, and New Glenn.
Beginning in March 2019, largely symbolic but still revolutionary language to be included in 2019’s defense procurement authorization may explicitly require the USAF to explain before Congress – in the event that a launch contract does not allow a reusable rocket to compete – why an expendable launch vehicle was privileged. Currently NET March 2019 as well, SpaceX’s third dedicated USAF launch – STP-2 on Falcon Heavy – is being set up primarily to help the USAF certify SpaceX’s newest heavy-lift rocket for national security launches.
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
