News
SpaceX receives first major Starship Moon lander funding from NASA
SpaceX has received its first major funding from NASA for the development of a crewed Starship Moon lander meant to return humans to the surface of Earth’s nearest neighbor as early as 2024.
Ordinarily, funding disbursement is just a routine, mundane part of government contracting. However, soon after NASA revealed that it had selected SpaceX – both the most technically sound proposal and cheapest option by half – alone to return humanity to the Moon, former competitors Dynetics and Blue Origin both filed protests complaining about the space agency’s conclusions. As a direct result, NASA was forced to freeze work on SpaceX’s brand new Human Landing System (HLS) contract and collaboration between both partners was strictly limited until both protests could be evaluated.
Technically, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) tasked with those reviews had 100 days from the date the protests were filed (April 26th) to complete the process. On July 30th, 95 days later, GAO announced that it had firmly denied both Dynetics’ and Blue Origin’s protests. As it turns out, likely just hours after GAO released its decision, NASA sent SpaceX its first major HLS Starship milestone payment.
As part of the $2.9 billion contract SpaceX won to develop a crewed Starship lander and perform at least two major test flights of the vehicle, one uncrewed and one crewed, NASA wasted no time at all sending SpaceX its first milestone payment of $300 million. In one fell swoop, NASA has thus doubled the amount of money it’s invested to date in SpaceX’s next-generation, fully-reusable Starship launch vehicle.
Per GAO’s July 30th decision document, NASA reportedly only had ~$350 million left to fund its FY2021 HLS Option A awardee(s) – almost all of which has now been sent to SpaceX. Despite the fact that the Dynetics and Blue Origin protests all but completely prevented NASA from making progress on HLS, they didn’t prevent SpaceX from continuing work at a breakneck pace. Notably, even with that $300M payment and a ~$140M HLS requirements contract Starship received in 2020, NASA has still disbursed less HLS funding to SpaceX than Blue Origin’s National Team, which received almost $480M to develop its own lander before SpaceX was crowned.
In fact, SpaceX simply continued as if those protests and their associated obstructions didn’t exist. In early May, for the first time ever, SpaceX successfully launched a full-scale Starship prototype to 10 km (~6.2 mi) and gently landed the massive rocket in one piece. The Starship tankers SpaceX’s HLS lander missions will require will ultimately rely on the exact same exotic recovery approach – an approach that SpaceX has now unequivocally proven works.
Around the same time, SpaceX began assembling a skyscraper-sized ‘launch tower’ that will be tasked with fueling Starship and eventually catching Super Heavy boosters. A few days before GAO denied the HLS Option A protests and allowed NASA to get back to work, SpaceX stacked that launch tower to its final ~145m (~475 ft) height, completing the basic structure. Plenty of outfitting remains, including the installation of the giant arms that will hopefully one day catch and fuel Starship stages, but that work is also progressing quickly.
In the three months NASA’s HLS program has been frozen in place, SpaceX also built, proof tested, and static fired a ~69m tall (~227 ft) Super Heavy booster (B3) for the first time, more or less completed the first orbital-class Starship prototype (S20), nearly finished another full-scale Super Heavy (B4), collectively installed 35 Raptors on both vehicles in about two days, and briefly stacked Ship 20 atop Booster 4 – creating the largest, tallest rocket ever assembled.
In short, even with no guarantee that it would ever receive any of the $2.9 billion NASA awarded it, SpaceX continued Starship development at a breakneck pace and – according to Elon Musk – could technically be ready for the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt “in a few weeks.” In the background, SpaceX also almost certainly completed a great deal of paperwork and deliverables that NASA was finally able to accept and review once unshackled. Ever the optimist, despite the hurdles, CEO Elon Musk still believes that SpaceX will not only deliver its Starship Moon lander – and thus NASA astronauts to the lunar surface – on time, but “probably sooner” than the 2024 target.
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
