News
SpaceX Starlink launch suffers last-second scrub, ULA up next [update: double scrub]
Update: ULA has scrubbed today’s NROL-44 launch attempt after the weather at the launch site substantially worsened. The Delta IV Heavy rocket’s next shot at launch is now scheduled no earlier than 11:58 pm EDT (03:58 UTC), Tuesday, September 29th, just two hours after a SpaceX Falcon 9 is scheduled to launch the US military’s fourth upgraded GPS III satellite.
SpaceX’s eleventh Starlink launch of the year was scrubbed ~30 seconds before liftoff by bad weather, likely delaying the mission a few days and leaving ULA’s latest Delta IV Heavy launch attempt next in line.
Scheduled to lift off at 10:22 am EDT on Monday, September 28th, SpaceX’s 12th operational Starlink launch (V1 L12) nearly made it to liftoff before the company called the mission off, prioritizing mission success above all else. Given that SpaceX’s Starlink program puts the company in the unique position of being its own launch customer, the decision to let a relatively mild weather violation delay a Starlink mission by at least a few days is unintuitively encouraging.
It’s no secret that SpaceX has become the most successful private launch company in history and a commercial force to be reckoned with, handily overtaking United Launch Alliance (ULA) and Arianespace to acquire a vast majority of the commercial launch market share. Falcon 9 is on track to become the fastest commercial rocket in history to cross the 100-launch milestone and SpaceX is already well on its way to regularly out-launching entire countries with 20+ missions per year. The single biggest risk facing the company is arguably complacency and an infamous tendency known as “launch fever.”
At the cutting edge of spaceflight, constant, exhaustive vigilance is ultimately the only thing standing between a reliable rocket or spacecraft and catastrophic failure. Perhaps the single biggest threat to that vigilance is the somewhat understandable desire to avoid launch delays – a fact of life for rocketry that nevertheless costs time, money, and (to some) reputation. The term “launch” or “go fever” was originally colloquialized to describe the irresponsible managerial pressure to launch largely responsible for both of NASA’s catastrophic Space Shuttle failures.
Some (if not most) parts of SpaceX almost assuredly would rather avoid launch delays. The fact that the company continues to accept Starlink launch delays and respect Falcon 9’s limits strongly implies that SpaceX has found ways to prevent launch fever while still pushing the envelope of launch cadence and rocket reuse. Starlink-12, for example, was originally meant to launch on September 17th but was delayed ~10 days by strong ocean currents before being scrubbed seconds before launch on September 28th. Combined with the fact that SpaceX is technically free to accept more risk on its own Starlink launches, compounded delays will inevitably test the limits of any organization’s resolve.
While the argument that SpaceX is technically the only direct stakeholder in Starlink missions is a bad-faith argument that could easily be made to push for increased risk tolerance, it’s only true in a vacuum. A Falcon 9 failure during a Starlink launch would still have major consequences for all of SpaceX’s customers, particularly delaying critical NASA astronaut and US military launches until a lengthy accident investigation is completed. SpaceX executives and managers involved in launch go/no-go decisions clearly understand this and act accordingly.
Starlink-12 will likely be recycled for another launch attempt sometime after ULA’s next Delta IV Heavy launch attempt and probably after SpaceX’s own GPS III SV04 mission for the US military, scheduled no earlier than (NET) 12:02 am EDT (04:02 UTC) and 9:55 pm EDT (01:55 UTC), September 29th, respectively. Catch ULA’s latest NROL-44 launch attempt at the company’s official webcast below.
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
