Update #2: SpaceX has successfully delivered Starlink 4-4 – batch of 52 new satellites – to low Earth orbit (LEO), completing the first of three back-to-back Falcon 9 launches scheduled less than three days apart.
Starlink 4-4 marks the 98th successful Falcon landing, the first time SpaceX has performed a non-polar Starlink launch from its West Coast pad, and the first time a Falcon 9 booster has completed 11 orbital-class launches and spaceflights. Up next, SpaceX is scheduled to launch Turkey’s Turksat 5B geostationary communications satellite out of its Cape Canaveral, Florida LC-40 pad. Falcon 9 could lift off as early as 10:58 pm EDT, Saturday, December 18th (03:58 UTC 19 Dec) – just 15 hours after Starlink 4-4. Set in September 2021, SpaceX’s current record is two launches in ~44 hours.
Update: SpaceX’s second dedicated West Coast Starlink launch has slipped to no earlier than (NET) 1:24 am PDT (09:24 UTC) on Saturday, December 18th. Headed to an orbit unusual for a Vandenberg Space Force Base launch, Starlink 4-4 could now lift off just 18 hours before a different SpaceX mission – Turksat 5B – lifts off from the opposite side of the country.
Barring delays to Cargo Dragon’s CRS-24 space station resupply mission, which remains scheduled for 5:06 am EDT on December 21st, that means that SpaceX is now on track to launch three Falcon 9 rockets in three days (less than 73 hours).
SpaceX appears to be on track to round out a record-breaking year with three Falcon 9 launches in four days.
With the diverse trio of missions, SpaceX will orbit another batch of laser-linked Starlink satellites, deliver a large communications satellite to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), send a Dragon to space for sixth time this year, and break at least two company records. The first mission, known as Starlink 2-3, could occur as early as the morning of December 17th, kicking off an incredibly busy period of launches – and not just for SpaceX.
Starlink 2-3
Referring to the fact that the mission will be the third launch for the second distinct group or ‘shell’ of Starlink satellites, Starlink 2-3 will actually be the second dedicated launch to a semi-polar orbit, leapfrogging Starlink 2-2 for unknown reasons after Starlink 2-1’s successful September launch. Originally scheduled to launch in mid-October, SpaceX was forced to stand down just a few days before liftoff for unknown reasons and at least a week or two of delays soon put Starlink 2-3 at risk of clashing with the company’s upcoming NASA DART launch, which unsurprisingly took precedence. SpaceX successfully launched the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission on November 24th.
Late on December 13th, tugboat Scorpius likely departed Port of Long Beach with SpaceX drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) in tow – a fairly airtight confirmation that a SpaceX launch is just a handful of days away. Based on safety Notices to Airmen and Mariners (NOTAMs/NOTMARs), Starlink 2-3 is scheduled to launch sometime between 12am and 6am PDT (UTC-8) on Friday, December 17th. If accurate and SpaceX stays on schedule, Falcon 9 could lift off from the company’s Vandenberg SLC-4E launch pad with Starlink 2-3 in tow just 22 days after a different Falcon 9 rocket launched DART – smashing the pad’s current 36-day turnaround record by almost 40%.
Aside from drastically increasing the maximum theoretical launch cadence SpaceX’s West Coast pad is capable of supporting, Starlink 2-3 is also expected – as it was in October – to fly on Falcon 9 booster B1051, potentially making the mission the first time a liquid rocket booster has completed eleven orbital-class launches. B1051 debuted in March 2019, sending an uncrewed Crew Dragon on its way to orbit for the first time. Before SpaceX’s Starlink launch cadence fell off a cliff in the second half of 2021, B1051 completed its tenth launch on May 9th, 2021, averaging one launch every ~80 days over a two-year career. Starlink 2-3 will be B1051’s first launch in 7 months and eleventh launch in 33 months.
Turksat 5B
As early as 11:58 pm EDT (UTC-5) on Saturday, December 18th, another Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to launch Turkey’s Turksat 5B geostationary communications satellite from SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral LC-40 pad. There’s a good chance that former Falcon Heavy booster B1052 – recently converted into a Falcon 9 after more than two years in storage – will be assigned to the mission, which is set to be SpaceX’s 30th orbital launch in 2021.
CRS-24 and more!
Finally, a different Falcon 9 (possibly B1062 or even a new booster entirely) is scheduled to launch a new Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft on CRS-24 – potentially the company’s 23rd operational International Space Station (ISS) resupply run since October 2012. It will be Falcon 9’s sixth Dragon launch of 2021 – another record for SpaceX and the spacecraft. If the schedule holds, CRS-24 could lift off as early as 5:06 am EDT (UTC-5) on Tuesday, December 21st and would be SpaceX’s third Falcon 9 launch in roughly 100 hours (a little over four days). CRS-24 is expected to be SpaceX’s 31st and final launch of 2021, beating out the 26-launch record it set just last year.
However, the rest of the world isn’t quite finished. As early as the day after CRS-24, an Ariane 5 rocket is scheduled to launch the almost $10 billion, NASA-built James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Decades in the making, JWST will be the single most expensive payload and the largest space telescope ever launched and is functionally irreplaceable and hard (but not impossible, if the political will is there) to repair, making it perhaps the most universally nerve-wracking uncrewed launch in the history of spaceflight.
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
