SpaceX is in the final stages of preparing a trio of Falcon 9 rockets for a set of launches scheduled less than two days apart.
The potential hat trick will likely be the last opportunity for a salvo of Falcon launches before the end of 2022. As a disclaimer, while unofficial launch dates (derived from regulatory documents or well-sourced public manifests) were consistently close to actual launch dates for most of 2022, that ceased to be the case when SpaceX began experiencing an abrupt uptick in launch delays over the last two months. As a result, Falcon launch dates – even once confirmed by SpaceX – should be assumed to be a bit more uncertain than usual until it’s clear that that trend has died down.
Nonetheless, all available signs indicate that SpaceX and its customers are moving forward with plans for three back-to-back launches before the end of the week.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Set to kick off the diverse trio is the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) spacecraft, a roughly $1.2 billion joint mission between NASA and French space agency CNES. Thanks in part to the COVID pandemic, which has and continues to impact large swaths of NASA and the aerospace industry, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory completed its portion of SWOT around 9% over budget and eight months behind schedule [PDF] since mission formulation began in 2012. Over a similar time scale, several other NASA missions have experienced cost increases of 10-100%, generally reflecting well on SWOT’s management.
SWOT, a roughly two-ton (~4400 lb) satellite, is designed to conduct the first global survey of all surface water on Earth using two large synthetic aperture radar (SAR) antennas and a conventional radar altimeter. At a cost of roughly $112 million, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to launch SWOT to low Earth orbit (LEO) no earlier than (NET) 3:46 am PST (11:46 UTC) on Thursday, December 15th. SpaceX successfully tested SWOT’s Falcon 9 well in advance on December 10th. The rocket was then returned to the company’s hangar at Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) Space Launch Complex 4E for payload installation before rolling back to the pad on December 13th.
The light satellite and low target orbit will allow Falcon 9’s booster to return to the launch site and land at SpaceX’s LZ-4 landing zone, precluding the need for a drone ship recovery.
Up next, another Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to launch the first two of eleven Boeing-built O3b mPOWER communication satellites for operator SES as early as 4:21 pm EST (21:21 UTC), Friday, December 16th. After lifting off from SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) LC-40 pad, Falcon 9 is set to launch the roughly 3.4-ton (~7500 lb) pair of satellites to a medium Earth orbit (MEO) with an altitude of 7825 kilometers (4862 mi).
It’s unclear what orbit Falcon 9 will launch the satellites to, but the rocket’s booster will land on drone ship A Shortfall of Gravitas (ASOG) some 700 kilometers (~435 mi) downrange, indicating that it will need as much performance as the rocket can give. ASOG departed Port Canaveral on December 11th, confirming that launch preparations are well underway.
Finally, a third Falcon 9 rocket could launch SpaceX’s first Starlink mission since October 28th as early as 4:54 or 5:13 pm EST (21:54 or 22:13) on December 16th, potentially just 33 or 52 minutes after O3b mPOWER 1&2. If the two missions do launch on December 16th, which a reliable source of unofficial information has indicated is not guaranteed, it will smash the US record for back-to-back launches of the same rocket family. Russia’s R-7 rocket family will retain the international crown, however, having launched twice in 25 minutes in 1969.
Starlink 4-37 will lift off from SpaceX’s NASA Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad, and its Falcon 9 booster will attempt to launch on drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI). JRTI departed Port Canaveral on December 12th.
Following Starlink 4-37, SpaceX has at least two more launches tentatively scheduled before the end of 2022. NextSpaceflight.com reports that SpaceX could launch its sixth Transporter rideshare mission from Florida on December 27th, and two Israeli EROS-C3 Earth observation satellites out of California on December 29th. However, it’s worth noting that in the almost 17-year history of SpaceX Falcon operations, the company has never launched a rocket after December 23rd or before January 6th. Transporter-6 and EROS-C3 – SpaceX’s 60th and 61st launches of the year – would have to break through that apparent firewall to launch when they are currently scheduled.
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
