News
SpaceX sticks dramatic drone ship landing, third reuse flight a resounding success
SpaceX has once more accomplished what the launch industry long dismissed as infeasible, conducting their third commercial reuse of a recovered Falcon 9 booster. This particular mission was tasked with launching the 5,200 kg SES-11/Echostar 105 communications satellite into a geostationary transfer orbit. Once it makes its way into the final geostationary orbit, the satellite can be expected to provide communications services to North America in the form of digital television.
After the Falcon 9 booster separated from the second stage, it conducted a rapid 180 degree flip in order to orient itself towards the landing target, an autonomous spaceport drone ship (ASDS) stationed several hundred miles East of the Kennedy Space Center. The hypersonic booster then slowed itself down from roughly 5,000 mph with a series of two burns, culminating in the stage’s second recovery after an orbital-class launch. The booster, 1031, was previously tasked with launching the 10th cargo Dragon mission to the ISS, later landing at SpaceX’s land-based LZ-1 pad in February 2017.
-
- SpaceX recovered core 1031, which launched CRS-10, in February 2017. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon 9 1031 lifts off for the second time from LC-39A. (Tom Cross/Teslarati)
This time around, 1031 got a taste of the ocean while landing aboard Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY), despite sea conditions that were deemed relatively rough and stormy. It is unlikely that 1031 will ever launch again, as it is a Block 3 Falcon 9 and thus intended to only be reused once or twice. Nevertheless, this core will add to SpaceX’s ever-growing fleet of both operational and decommissioned Falcon 9 cores, most of which are stored in and around SpaceX’s Florida facilities.
This landing and recovery was quite possibly the most dramatic yet for SpaceX. While rapidly reentering into Earth’s thickening atmosphere, the stage experienced extraordinary heating that resulted in the aluminum grid fins nearly glowing white, and the same camera caught gorgeous interplay between ionizing gases coming off the stage and its final landing burn. For a solid minute thereafter, ground control lost the video feed from the first stage, seemingly foreshadowing the core’s untimely demise. However, cameras aboard OCISLY maintained their live coverage and revealed the stage’s successful landing aboard the drone ship soon after.
-
- Falcon 9 1031 on its way to OCISLY. (SpaceX)
-
- An incredible view of Falcon 9’s older aluminum grid finds glowing white-hot during reentry. (SpaceX)
-
- A gorgeous view of Earth’s curvature and orbital sunset. (SpaceX)
The second stage continued to orbit, coincidentally catching an incredible view of the sun setting behind Earth’s limb just before its first orbital insertion burn ended. After a coast period of some 20 minutes, the second stage reignited to boost the SES-11/EchoStar 105 satellite into its final transfer orbit, after which the satellite separated from the stage and continued on its way. The Falcon 9 second stage will eventually reenter Earth’s atmosphere and break apart before impacting the ocean, a process that may be expedited if the vehicle has enough residual fuel to hasten the orbital decay.
Put simply, SES-11/EchoStar 105 demonstrates SpaceX’s growing consistency and the resounding success they are having with the routinization of rapid launch cadence and commercially reusable rockets. The mission is the company’s 15th in 2017 alone, as well as the 12th successful recovery of a first stage this year and the 18th successful recovery total. More importantly, its launch was the third commercial reuse of a Falcon 9 first stage, paving the way for future reuses as the endeavor’s record of success continues without flaw.
-
- Another example of the intense reentry this Falcon 9 experience during its recovery. (SpaceX)
-
- 1031 seen just after landing aboard OCISLY. (SpaceX)
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
