News
SpaceX Starlink launch ambitions just saved a space station resupply mission from bigger delays
SpaceX’s ambitious 2020 Starlink launch goals have unintentionally saved a Cargo Dragon spacecraft mission from much longer delays after a major part of its Falcon 9 rocket had to be replaced at the last second.
Known as SpaceX’s 20th NASA Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-20) mission, SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon spacecraft was initially scheduled to launch supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) as early as March 2nd, 2020, a date that recently slipped four days to 11:50 pm EDT (04:50 UTC), March 6th. Simultaneously, a separate Falcon 9 Starlink mission – assigned to a different launch pad – found itself delayed from March 4th to March 11th.
A day or so after news of the CRS-20 launch delay first broke, NASA published a blog post noting that SpaceX had taken the extraordinary step of fully replacing the mission’s Falcon 9 second stage, the part of the rocket (pictured underneath Dragon in the photo above) tasked with taking payloads from the edge of space into Earth orbit (or beyond). Triggered by a faulty component in its space-optimized Merlin Vacuum engine, the fact that SpaceX chose to replace the upper stage and still only delayed CRS-20’s launch by four days suggests that its ambitious Starlink launch plans are already creating positive side effects for commercial customers.
"SpaceX identified a valve motor on the second stage engine behaving not as expected and determined the safest and most expedient path to launch is to utilize the next second stage in line that was already at the Cape and ready for flight."https://t.co/E9dokEAf0n— Michael Baylor (@MichaelBaylor_) February 25, 2020
As of late, multi-day hardware-related launch delays have been rather rare for SpaceX, who has instead suffered numerous weather-related scrubs over the course of completing its Fall 2019 and Winter 2020 launch manifest. SpaceX’s February 17th Starlink-4 mission did suffer a minor second stage valve-related delay that was fixed in about 24 hours, but things have otherwise been quite smooth for Falcon 9.
Given all that goes into building and testing Falcon 9 second stages, there are very few good explanations (aside from pure luck) that would allow for a given SpaceX launch to entirely replace its assigned second stage a week before liftoff and only slip a handful of days. Nevertheless, with CRS-20, SpaceX is attempting to do exactly that.
“SpaceX identified a valve motor on the second stage engine behaving not as expected and determined the safest and most expedient path to launch is to utilize the next second stage in line that was already at the Cape and ready for flight. The new second stage has already completed the same preflight inspections with all hardware behaving as expected. The updated target launch date provides the time required to complete preflight integration and final checkouts.”
NASA.gov — February 25th, 2020
The specific lead times SpaceX’s Falcon rocket family parts require is almost totally unknown but it’s safe to say that the process of building a Falcon upper stage from scratch, performing acceptance testing in Texas, and shipping said stage to the launch pad takes months from start to finish. For SpaceX to be able to attempt to minimize CRS-20’s delays to just four days while still fully swapping out its upper stage, the company would have quite literally had to have had another Falcon stage just sitting around in Florida.
As it turns out, per NASA’s official statement, that is precisely what transpired. A separate second stage was already in Florida and “ready for flight”, giving SpaceX the luxury of selecting the safest option theoretically available. Beyond the hardware already being ready to go in Florida, the stage reassignment almost certainly also hinged upon the mission it was assigned to being somewhat nonessential – a label that SpaceX would be hard-pressed to affix to any of its customers’ launches. An internal Starlink mission, however, would be a perfect opportunity, allowing SpaceX to avoid both picking favorites and seriously impacting (aside from the ~4-day CRS-20 delay) its paying customers.
To be clear, SpaceX was thus able to swap out CRS-20’s upper stage at the last second with only a minor schedule impact almost exclusively because of it’s ambitious plans for 20-24 Starlink launches this year. If the company wasn’t pursuing a more than biweekly 2020 launch cadence, it’s much more likely that CRS-20 would have had to make do with its second stage or wait for a new one to be built, potentially delaying the launch by one or two weeks, if not longer.
In simple terms, the launch cadence SpaceX is targeting (and needs) for its Starlink constellation is already exhibiting signs of a future where its high-performance orbital-class rockets have been almost entirely commodified.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
