News
SpaceX to launch secret “Zuma” payload same day as Tesla Semi event
SpaceX has completed preparations and is ready to launch the highly secretive “Zuma” satellite(s) at 5pm/8pm PST/EST on Thursday, November 16th, the same day Tesla will be holding its semi-truck unveiling event.
Updated: SpaceX has rescheduled the Zuma mission.
SpaceX's highly secretive mission originally scheduled for today has been rescheduled for 8pm ET Fri., Nov. 17. On-the-ground photos from today – https://t.co/CUHuwP2lT3 pic.twitter.com/TZVBhjTOzw
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 16, 2017
The Zuma launch campaign has been veiled in an extraordinary level of secrecy for SpaceX and the US launch industry in general, and this has piqued the interest of many.
In the last decade or two, the United States military apparatus has launched many dozens of satellites, and secrecy on the order of Zuma is unusual to say the least. Missions for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) typically feature some level of media presence and have developed a community of fans in the age of social media, taking advantage of cartoonish mission logos that can often be entertaining, if not vaguely disturbing.
Some of the more ‘unique’ NROL logos in recent years. (NRO)
However, no federal agency has yet to announce involvement in Zuma. The full extent of public information available can be found in a handful of tweets, with drastically less official info available from a leaky source on Reddit. Thus far, Northrop Grumman is known to have at least procured Zuma’s launch from SpaceX, and the same statement indirectly suggested that Zuma was in fact a government-related mission. NRO is the obvious option, with the Air Force or another branch of the US military or intelligence apparatus also a distinct possibility. It is entirely possible that the nature and parent of the mission will remain secret for the indefinite future, even after its launch.
Nevertheless, a handful of details allow us to speculate in greater detail. In May 2017, SpaceX launched NROL-76, a Department of Defense satellite that was intriguingly observed to have made very close passes to the International Space Station, far too close to have been a coincidence. Based on Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) filed with the FAA and discussed earlier this week, it appears Zuma may be placed in an orbit very similar to that of NROL-76, suggesting that Zuma could be an iteration on NROL-76’s supposed orbit-to-orbit data gathering capabilities. This time, however, agency involvement has been completely shadowed. A blank fairing, sans any NROL-reminiscent logo, will be the tell-tale sign come tomorrow, when Teslarati’s launch photographer Tom Cross arrives at Kennedy Space Center for camera setup.
Northrop Grumman on #SpaceX Zuma launch: "This represents a cost effective approach to space access for government missions. Northrop realizes that this is monumental responsibility and has taken great care to ensure the most affordable and lowest risk scenario for Zuma."
— Robin Seemangal (@nova_road) November 13, 2017
Meanwhile, as has become shockingly routine, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first stage, core 1043, will conduct a Return to Launch Site (RTLS), landing at LZ-1 just a few miles from its launch pad. Like NROL-76, we can expect live coverage of the second stage and payload to end immediately after stage separation; bittersweet but esoteric fans, but likely to result in a unique focus on the stage returning to Earth.
On the horizon
Possibly more exciting than the launch itself, Zuma is expected to be the last launch from SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center LC-39A facilities until Falcon Heavy, currently aiming for an inaugural flight around December 29th. After a solid year of repairs and refurbishment, SpaceX’s LC-40 launch pad is anticipating a return to flight operations with the CRS-13 Cargo Dragon mission on December 4th. Located within the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station just a few miles south of LC-39A, LC-40 suffered widespread damage after a Falcon 9 catastrophically failed while preparing for a static fire test on the pad.
Despite the tragic loss of vehicle and the Amos-6 payload, SpaceX has maintained a strong relationship with the owner, Spacecom, and was recently chosen for both a contractual reflight in 2019 and an additional launch in 2020.
SpaceX has also made great strides since returning to flight after Amos-6 in January 2017, and has enjoyed a truly groundbreaking year of incredible progress towards the goal of rapid reusability. Quite fittingly, LC-40 is expected to return to action while hosting yet another commercial reuse of a Falcon 9 first stage, this time with the hugely significant approval of NASA. The space agency has yet to make this decision resoundingly public, but respected industry insider NASASpaceflight.com has stated that it is all but in stone at this point in time. In a sense, the disaster that severely damaged LC-40 acted as a since-heeded wake-up call for SpaceX, and the venerable pad will rise from those ashes into a new era of reusable rocketry, led wholeheartedly by SpaceX.
Be sure to follow our Instagram stories and see live action directly from the launch site at the Kennedy Space Center!
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
