News
SpaceX aims for 3 rocket launches in a single week, 6 launches in 1 month
Tailing an intense February that saw SpaceX successfully complete inaugural launches of both Falcon Heavy and two Starlink prototype satellites, the next three weeks of March are likely to be relatively quiet. However, by all appearances, SpaceX is preparing for a frenetic end-of-month that could include three Falcon 9 launches from three separate SpaceX launch pads, all in a single week, and as many as six launches total between March 29 and April 30.
If successful, this series of missions would smash all of SpaceX’s past launch cadence records – six launches in little more than a single month, two reused flights in four days, three launches in one week, and two East coast launches in three days, not to mention the debut of Falcon 9 Block 5. To put this level of activity in perspective, SpaceX could complete the equivalent of four months or 33% of all of their 2017 launches in a single month. SpaceX’s aggressive goal of 30 launches in 2018 still means that the company could complete a full 1/5th of their scheduled manifest in less than five weeks, a cadence that – if maintained for a full year – would equate to 60-70 launches in 12 months.
50 launches of Falcon 9 in seven and a half years. Graphic produced by Reddit user ethan829. (Reddit /u/ethan829)
Three launches, three pads, seven days
Beginning on March 29, SpaceX’s next series of launches will kick off with the flight-proven Iridium-5 mission tasked with placing 10 Iridium NEXT communications satellites into LEO from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Three days later (April 2), a flight-proven Cargo Dragon and Falcon 9 booster are scheduled to lift off from LC-40 on the East coast, likely followed by the first stage’s second landing at LZ-1. Finally, SpaceX will return Pad 39A to its first single-stick Falcon 9 launches since February’s inaugural Falcon Heavy flight with Bangabandhu-1, the Bangladesh government’s first-ever geostationary satellite. Bangabandhu-1 will also mark the inaugural launch of SpaceX’ potentially game-changing Falcon 9 upgrade, and that invaluable pathfinder booster will almost certainly find its way to a soft landing aboard the Atlantic drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY).
Following those three launches and around ten days of quiet, SpaceX will launch NASA’s TESS, a scientific probe tasked with searching for planets beyond our solar system, from Florida’s LC-40, April 16. After another ten-day “break,” the company will jump back to the West coast to place another five Iridium NEXT satellites (and two NASA science payloads) into orbit on April 28. On April 30, just two days later, SES-12 is scheduled for an East coast launch to geostationary transfer orbit aboard a reused Falcon 9.
-
- SpaceX intends to launch three Falcon 9s from all three of its pads in just seven days. Pictured here their VAFB pad in California. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- A reused Falcon 9 clears the lightning towers of Florida’s Launch Complex-40 (LC-40). (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon Heavy explodes off of Pad 39A in a spectacle of fire, Roadster in tow. (Tom Cross)
A new era of rapid reusability rears its head
Put simply, this is an extreme pace for orbital launches, and would be an absolutely staggering achievement for SpaceX even if Hispasat’s week-long delay extends that month-long period to six or so weeks for a half-dozen launches. While almost certainly a coincidence, this rapid succession of launches happens to coincide with the inaugural April 5th launch of SpaceX’s next-generation Falcon 9, an upgrade meant to enable cheap and rapid reuse of the rocket’s first stage. With Block 5, it is entirely conceivable that a Falcon 9 booster could land at LZ-1, be transported back to the launch pad after a brief once-over, and conduct another launch in a matter of days, at a meaningful cost of little more than the second stage and payload fairing (for the time being, at least). Of course, those minimal costs will at first help SpaceX recoup its considerable investments in reusability, but they can be expected to trickle down to the customer within a year or two (~30-60 launches) of Block 5’s introduction.
-
- SpaceX Block 5 Falcon9 at McGregor, Texas [Credit: Chris G – NSF via Twitter, Reprinted with permission from NASASpaceflight.com]
-
- A matte-silver Block 5 Merlin 1D rocket engine seen preparing to leave SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory for testing in Texas. (SpaceX)
Ultimately, Falcon 9 Block 5 will give SpaceX an unprecedented amount of capital flexibility. Once the upgrade has phased out older Falcons, the company will have a huge amount of freedom to constantly strike a balance between competitive pricing and profit margins. In other words, no launch provider on Earth will be able to lowball SpaceX on cost without SpaceX’s conscious acquiescence, and every single recoverable launch of a Block 5 will equate to profit margins previously inconceivable for the company. However, rather than lining the pockets of military-industrial complex profiteers, those profits will help SpaceX both pay off R&D debts and intensively invest in more thrilling hardware developments, including Crew Dragon, Starlink, Raptor, BFR/BFS, and beyond. SpaceX does not intend to become rich and lazy in their success — they mean to develop technology that will provide affordable internet on a global scale, return humanity to the moon, and one day establish a permanent and self-sustaining city on Mars.
Follow us for live updates, behind-the-scenes sneak peeks, and a sea of beautiful photos from both our East and West coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
