News
SpaceX’s next Starlink launch will have to wait a bit longer
According to NASASpaceflight.com sources, SpaceX’s next Starlink satellite launch will have to wait a bit longer after slipping about a week from its former April 16th target.
Recently discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX has planned what is effectively a “return to flight” launch just weeks after Falcon 9 suffered its first in-flight engine failure in almost eight years. While the rocket was able to adjust on the fly to ensure that the overall Starlink mission was a success, the unprecedentedly reused Falcon 9 booster was lost during its landing attempt. More importantly, the Merlin 1D engine failure immediately raised the concern of NASA and the US military, SpaceX’s most important launch customers.
Expected to launch on thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster B1051, a successful return-to-flight so soon after SpaceX’s Starlink-5 anomaly would strongly imply that the company has already identified and characterized the cause of that March 18th hiccup with a significant degree of confidence. While Starlink-6 (the seventh Starlink launch overall) wont exactly replicate the conditions preceding Starlink-5’s in-flight engine failure, a successful launch would hopefully help alleviate any major concerns from SpaceX’s customers. That mission, however, will now have to wait another week or so to launch.
While not quite as flight-proven as B1048, the Falcon 9 booster that suffered an engine failure and was lost at sea last month, SpaceX (according to Next Spaceflight) has assigned Falcon 9 booster B1051 to its seventh Starlink launch. Since its first flight in March 2019, supporting Crew Dragon’s historic orbital launch debut, B1051 has completed two additional orbital-class launches and landings, lofting Canada’s three-satellite Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) in June 2019 and SpaceX’s fourth batch of 60 Starlink satellites in January 2020.
The Starlink-6 (Flight 7) mission will be B1051’s fourth, making it the sixth SpaceX Falcon 9 booster to launch four times since booster B1048 pushed the envelope in November 2019 – just five months ago. Aside from Falcon 9 B1048’s Starlink-5 engine failure and subsequently unsuccessful landing attempt, SpaceX also lost booster B1056 after its fourth flight in February 2020. Excluding two or three new Falcon 9 boosters assigned to critical missions for NASA and the US military, those two booster losses shrunk SpaceX’s rocket fleet by 30-40%, leaving just three flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters for other Starlink or customer missions.
SpaceX does have two twice-flown Falcon Heavy side boosters, said by CEO Elon Musk to be relatively easy to convert into Falcon 9 boosters, but their status is currently unknown, leaving them as the wildcards of SpaceX’s rocket fleet.
For SpaceX to be able to continue an ambitious Starlink launch cadence throughout the rest of 2020, the successful recovery of flight-proven boosters like B1051, B1049, and B1059 will likely be uniquely paramount over the next few months. Assuming SpaceX is able to successfully launch its first astronauts on Crew Dragon (NET late May) and complete a second US military GPS satellite launch (NET June 30th), two once-flown boosters will thankfully enter the company’s fleet, raising it to five (or seven) strong in by July or August.
SpaceX’s next Starlink launch is now scheduled for no earlier than (NET) April 22nd, give or take a day or two.
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
