Update: SpaceX says it and NASA are moving forward with plans to launch a Crew Dragon carrying US, Japanese, and Russian astronauts as early as noon EDT (16:00 UTC) on Wednesday, October 5th.
Concurring with a statement made on October 3rd, SpaceX has also called off a planned October 4th launch of its Starlink 4-29 mission. However, the company has delayed Starlink 4-29 just 24 hours and says that Falcon 9 will launch the latest batch of internet satellites out of California no earlier than (NET) 4:10 pm PDT (23:10 UTC) on October 5th. Intelsat has also confirmed that its Galaxy 33 and Galaxy 34 geostationary communications satellites are scheduled to launch on a Falcon 9 rocket as early as 7:07 pm EDT (23:07 UTC) on October 6th, leaving SpaceX on track to launch three Falcon 9 rockets from three launch pads in 31 hours.
The company achieved a similar feat earlier this year when it launched three Falcon 9 rockets in 36 hours. Three launches in 31 hours would break that record.
SpaceX is on the cusp of launching three Falcon 9 rockets in a handful of days. Minor issues with two of the three missions, however, have complicated the already hard process of coordinating so many launches at the same time.
For many reasons, rocket launches are an inherently difficult thing to schedule, and that difficulty only gets magnified when attempting to launch rockets as quickly as possible for customers with very different needs while using a fixed number of launch pads. SpaceX’s upcoming series of launches demonstrates the slippery nature of high-cadence rocket launch scheduling better than most.
Last month, SpaceX ran into issues (mainly bad weather) that delayed its Starlink 4-34, 4-35, and 4-36 missions by varying degrees. Before those delays, SpaceX had intended to break its LC-40 pad turnaround record with Starlink 4-35 and then repeat the feat with Starlink 4-36, but that opportunity closed when Starlink 4-34’s several weather delays pushed Starlink 4-35 from September 19th to the 24th and raised the risk of the next launch, Starlink 4-36, interfering with customer missions planned in the first half of October.
That burst of customer missions, all of which take priority over SpaceX’s own Starlink missions, meant that a few-day delay for a mission two launches prior ultimately pushed Starlink 4-36 from the end of September to no earlier than October 20th. It will launch out of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s (CCSFS) LC-40, the same pad that launched Starlink 4-35 on September 24th and will launch Intelsat’s Galaxy 33 and 34 satellites no earlier than (NET) October 6th and Eutelsat’s Hotbird 13F satellite NET October 13th. All four launches (including Starlink 4-36) are thus contingent upon each other, so a delay with one mission would likely delay each subsequent mission to leave enough time for pad turnaround and rocket processing.
Date Mission Rocket Location Pad 10/04/22 Starlink 4-29 Falcon 9 California VSFB SLC-4E 10/04/22 SES-20/21 Atlas V Florida CCSFS LC-41 10/05/22 Crew-5 Falcon 9 Florida KSC LC-39A 10/06/22 Galaxy 33/34 Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40 10/13/22 Hotbird 13F Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40 10/20/22 Starlink 4-36 Falcon 9 Florida CCSFS LC-40
SpaceX isn’t the only company that launches out of Cape Canaveral, Florida. Originally scheduled in late September, the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V launch of the SES-20 and SES-21 geostationary communication satellites was delayed by the same weather system that indirectly hampered Starlink 4-35 and 4-36. That mission is now set to launch NET 5:36 pm EDT (21:36 UTC) on October 4th.
Up first, however, is SpaceX’s Starlink 4-29 mission out of California’s Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB). Delayed to October 4th hours before its October 3rd target, the new schedule will give SpaceX “more time for pre-launch checkouts,” Falcon 9 will now lift off as early as 4:48 pm PDT (23:48 UTC), a little over two hours after Atlas V. However, making the whole situation even more interlinked, SpaceX says it will stand down from its October 4th Starlink launch attempt if its next Florida mission – Crew Dragon’s fifth operational NASA astronaut launch – remains on track for its current noon EDT (16:00 UTC), October 5th launch target.
In an October 3rd briefing following a mostly clean launch readiness review (LRR), NASA and SpaceX officials revealed that three new minor issues – “not showstoppers” – had appeared after a busy period of ground testing. An otherwise successful astronaut dry dress rehearsal and a subsequent wet dress rehearsal and static fire uncovered a possible fire extinguisher leak in the Dragon spacecraft and a minor issue with one of the Falcon 9 rocket booster’s nine Merlin 1D engines. A communications issue was also discovered on the SpaceX drone ship Crew-5’s rocket booster is meant to land on in the Atlantic Ocean.
SpaceX and NASA officials weren’t especially worried about the issues and were confident they would be resolved in time for an October 5th launch. If they aren’t and Crew-5 slips to October 6th, SpaceX should be able to launch Starlink 4-29 on October 4th, but then it’s unclear if the company will also be able to launch Intelsat’s Galaxy 33 and Galaxy 34 geostationary communications satellites on the same day as Crew-5. Galaxy 33/34 is scheduled to launch NET 7:07 pm EDT on October 6th, likely ~6 hours after Crew-5’s own October 6th launch window.
If Crew-5 slips and Galaxy 33/34 can’t launch on the same day, it would likely delay both Hotbird 13F and Starlink 4-36. It’s also unclear if Starlink 4-29 can launch on the same day as Crew-5 if it flies after Dragon. Either way, SpaceX could potentially end up launching Crew-5, Galaxy 33/34, and Starlink 4-29 on October 5th and 6th – potentially less than a day and a half apart.
As SpaceX continues to push the limits of what is possible with its existing Falcon launch and landing infrastructure, chaotic scheduling situations like this, where small issues impact large strings of launches, will become the norm instead of the exception
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
