News
SpaceX considers second Crew Dragon launch pad to reduce risk from Starship
Reuters reports that SpaceX has proposed modifying a second Florida launch pad to support Crew Dragon missions after NASA raised concerns about the threat posed by plans to launch Starship out of the only pad currently certified for Dragon.
After more than a year of downtime, SpaceX restarted the construction of an orbital Starship launch site at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad in late 2021. SpaceX has leased Pad 39A since 2014 and conducted 49 Falcon rocket launches out of the facility since its first use in 2017. Prior to SpaceX’s lease, Pad 39A supported 82 Space Shuttle launches from 1981 to 2011 and every Apollo Program launch to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s, making it one of the most storied and well-used launch sites in the history of US spaceflight.
In 2018, Pad 39A began supporting launches of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, which was and still is the most powerful and capable rocket currently in operation. In May 2020, a Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft lifted off with two NASA astronauts in tow, marking SpaceX’s first human spaceflight and the United States’ first domestic astronaut launch of any kind since 2011. The next era of the historic pad could include Starship, a fully-reusable two-stage rocket that SpaceX has been developing in earnest since the mid-2010s. However, NASA is worried that a failure of that immense and unproven rocket could almost instantly destroy what is currently the only launch pad on Earth capable of launching the space agency’s astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).
One certainly can’t blame NASA for worrying. In its latest iteration, SpaceX’s Starship 39A launch mount will sit roughly 1000 feet (~300m) East of Pad 39A’s existing Falcon launch facilities, which include a tower and arm that are needed for astronauts and cargo to access and board Crew and Cargo Dragons. The Starship mount is also around 1600 feet (~500m) northeast of Pad 39A’s lone horizontal integration hangar, without which Falcon launch operations would become far more difficult or even impossible.
For the Falcon pad and tower, there is a slight consolation: Starship’s own skyscraper-sized launch tower will be located directly between those Falcon facilities and Starship before and during launches and could partially protect them from any hypothetical blast. The hangar will be fully unprotected, however.
NASA is worried that if a Starship fails before or shortly after launch and explodes at or near its adjacent launch mount, it could destroy or damage the infrastructure the space agency and SpaceX need to launch Crew Dragon to the International Space Station (ISS). At the moment, Boeing – NASA’s second Commercial Crew partner – is likely a year or more away from its first operational astronaut launch, during which Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon will remain a single point of failure that could theoretically sever the space agency’s connection to its own space station at any moment.
In response to NASA’s concern, NASA executive Kathy Lueders – in an interview with Reuters – says that SpaceX has begun working with the agency on plans to both “harden” Pad 39A and modify its Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-40 pad to support Dragon launches. According to Reuters, however, receiving approval to put those plans into action “could take months.” Depending on how significant the facilities LC-40 would need are, there’s also a chance that SpaceX would need to complete a new FAA environmental review to construct a crew access tower.
Meanwhile, Pad 39A is also the only launch pad in the world capable of supporting Falcon Heavy, which has also become an extremely important rocket for uncrewed NASA spacecraft launches, NASA’s plans to get cargo to its lunar Gateway space station, and to the US military. Modifying one of SpaceX’s other pads to support Falcon Heavy would likely be even harder and take even longer than adding Crew Dragon capabilities to LC-40. In both cases, it’s likely that NASA and the US military would strongly prefer – if they don’t eventually outright require – that SpaceX have backup options already constructed and ready to go before risking the destruction of Pad 39A with its first Starship launch.
39A’s Starship facilities could easily require another 6-12 months of work before they’ll be ready for launch, however, leaving a good amount of time for SpaceX to alleviate the concerns of its US government customers before they might actually start to disrupt plans for East Coast Starship launches.
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
