News
SpaceX’s first Starship hop on hold for historic Crew Dragon astronaut launch
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that he’s “redirected SpaceX’s priorities” to be almost entirely focused on Crew Dragon’s imminent astronaut launch debut, delaying Starship’s own hop test debut by at least a week or two as a result.
As of now, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft remains on track to lift off with NASA astronauts for the first time ever at 4:33 pm EDT (20:33 UTC) on Wednesday, May 27th. Known as Demonstration Mission 2 (Demo-2), it will be Crew Dragon’s second orbital launch, third launch on a Falcon 9 rocket, and – most importantly – the United States’ first domestic astronaut launch in almost a decade. Although NASA has still managed to maintain a continuous presence at the International Space Station over the last nine years by paying Russia’s space agency more than $4 billion for roughly six dozen seats on Soyuz spacecraft, Demo-2 will be NASA’s first astronaut launch from the US since June 2011.
Built entirely by SpaceX with funds awarded by NASA, the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket will effectively singlehandedly return the United States’ ability to launch its own astronauts. Funded along with Boeing to ensure that NASA has two redundant spacecraft available, the latter company’s Starliner spacecraft has run into extensive delays after its orbital flight test (OFT) uncovered dangerously shoddy software and quality control. If Boeing is lucky, NASA might clear Starliner for its own crewed flight test (CFT, equivalent to Crew Dragon Demo-2) in the first half of 2021. As a result, a vast amount of pressure is on SpaceX’s shoulders to successfully launch astronauts for the first time ever just a few days from now.
Of course, SpaceX is not unilaterally focused on Crew Dragon or its inaugural astronaut launch, even if it might be the single most important mission in the company’s 18 years of operation. For a company as large as SpaceX, it’s simply not practical or valuable to have every single employee working on one project, while having too many people on a given project would also likely be to its detriment. Nevertheless, Musk – in an interview with Aviation Week’s Irene Klotz – stated that he’d redirected SpaceX’s priorities to be “very focused” on Demo-2.
Aside from Crew Dragon Demo-2, SpaceX operates a Starlink satellite factory near Seattle, builds and assembles all aspects of Falcon rockets and Dragon spacecraft at its Hawthorne, CA headquarters, tests those rockets and spacecraft in McGregor, Texas development facilities, and builds, tests, and flies Starship prototypes in Boca Chica, Texas. (The company has many, many other operations around the US but the list above at least covers the bulk of the company’s workforce.)
Those myriad programs can’t simply freeze operations without catastrophically impacting future plans and schedules, meaning that Musk’s “redirection” is likely more an effort to keep the public focus on Crew Dragon, versus actually retasking thousands of employees to do work that probably doesn’t (but might) exist. Still, the company has definitely taken some real steps to stay laser-focused on Crew Dragon where practical.
Most notably, SpaceX has already indefinitely delayed its eight launch of 60 Starlink communications satellites, previously scheduled to lift off no earlier than (NET) May 19th. Now, Musk says that SpaceX has also decided to delay the first flight test of a full-scale Starship prototype until after Demo-2 successfully launches, implying that the company could have potentially launched Starship SN4 for the first time later this week.
In fact, SpaceX has three Starlink launches – including the mission delayed from May – now scheduled in June 2020, as well as Falcon 9’s second US military GPS III satellite launch at the end of the month. It’s unclear whether SpaceX will retest Starship SN4 after its off-nominal May 19th Raptor test or move directly into flight test operations, but its next South Texas test period has windows on May 28th, May 29th, and June 1st. In short, the next ~5 weeks are set to be a wild ride for SpaceX, to put it mildly.
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
