News
SpaceX Starship to land NASA astronauts on the Moon
SpaceX has won part of a new $1 billion NASA contract to create a custom version of Starship designed explicitly to send space agency astronauts and huge amounts of cargo to the Moon.
Incredibly, SpaceX won its Lunar Starship development contract alongside two others awarded by NASA – one to a Blue Origin-led coalition and the other to Dynetics and “more than 25 subcontractors”. Of the three, only SpaceX’s offering is a single-stage lunar lander, while Dynetics wants to build a two-stage lander and Blue Origin wants to build a three-stage lander. It also appears that SpaceX’s custom Starship is the only lander designed to be at least partially reusable, capable of flying “many times between the surface of the Moon and lunar orbit” according to the launch company.
While potentially very exciting, the fate of NASA’s triple-threat Moon lander contract award now rests almost entirely in the hands of Congress. As of today, NASA has committed almost $970 million to the three lunar landers it’s decided to develop, only part of which the space agency appears to have on hand and ready for dispersal. For the program to even begin to approach actual missions to the Moon, let alone astronaut landings, Congress will have to consistently raise NASA’s budget every year for at least the next five to six.
Even insofar as that required budget raise (roughly ~$3B per year) is only a 10-15% increase and is effectively a rounding error relative to the rest of the federal budget, military in particular, the odds that Congress will consistently and fully support it are not great. For example, the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) – set to attempt its inaugural astronaut launch next month – began in 2010 with the expectation it would cost around $7-8 billion and achieve its first crewed launch in 2015 or 2016.
From 2010 to 2015, Congress systematically underfunded the Commercial Crew Program for largely parochial reasons, preferring to put money into projects (typically the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and their launch facilities) that directly benefited their districts or states. Over half a decade, Congress supplied only 60% of the funds CCP had budgeted, a lack of resources that likely directly resulted in years of program delays. Notably, while both Boeing and SpaceX have run into significant technical hurdles and suffered their own technical delays, the companies would have almost certainly been able to discover those hurdles earlier on if they’d had the full CCP budget supporting them.
It’s entirely unclear whether NASA’s new Artemis Moon lander program will have a better or worse time than the Commercial Crew Program. The same parochial SLS/Orion/ground systems interests remain in full force in the US House and Senate and will likely not be pleased by the fact that only one of NASA’s three HLS awards could result in SLS launch contracts. Surprise winner Dynetics has proposed a lander that can launch on either SLS 1B or the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Vulcan Centaur rockets.
SpaceX’s Starship lander will unsurprisingly launch of its own Super Heavy rocket booster, while Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Draper’s lander will almost certainly launch on the former company’s New Glenn rocket.
Ultimately, this is the most significant acknowledgement and support SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket has ever received from NASA or the US federal government. Still, of the ~$970 million NASA has initially committed, Starship only received $135 million – nearly half as much as Dynetic received and more than four times less than Blue Origin’s award. NASA is thus clearly hinging its investment on SpaceX’s continued internal support for its next-generation, fully-reusable launch vehicle, as $135 million certainly isn’t enough for even SpaceX to build a building-sized rocket to land astronauts on the Moon.
Regardless, this is certainly one of the most intriguing possible outcomes of NASA’s Human Lander Systems contracts and should keep things very interesting – pending Congressional support – over the next several years.
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
