News
SpaceX will transition all launches to Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets after next mission
SpaceX’s 13th reuse of a Falcon 9 booster marked the second-to-last orbital mission of older boosters before the rocket’s highly reusable Block 5 upgrade takes over all future commercial launches.
If only for the staggering rise of SpaceX’s program of reusable rockets, June 4’s Falcon 9 launch was novel and thrilling in part because its flight-proven booster was intentionally stripped of all reuse-related hardware to bestow as much performance as possible on the mission’s large geostationary communications satellite payload, named SES-12. While this practice of intentionally expending non-Block 5 flight-proven boosters after launch has actually been fairly common over the course of the last seven Falcon 9 reflights, excluding Falcon Heavy – SpaceX is, in essence, betting heavily on the viability and success of the rocket’s quasi-final Block 5 upgrade.
SpaceX’s second to last commercial launch with a non-Block 5 Falcon 9 was completed around 1 am EST June 4. It’s once flight-proven booster ended its life in the Atlantic soon after liftoff. (Tom Cross)
Following June 4’s SES-12 launch, after which Falcon 9 S1 (B1040, previously flown on the September 2017 launch of a classified X-37B spaceplane) arced down its final parabola into the Atlantic, SpaceX has just a single commercial launch of a Block 4 booster scheduled. In fact, that launch happens to be next up on the company’s manifest: currently no earlier than (NET) June 28, CRS-15 will see the same booster (B1045) that launched NASA’s TESS exoplanet observatory scarcely ten weeks prior send a refurbished Cargo Dragon to the International Space Station. After CRS-15, which will also see its booster expended in the Atlantic, just one flightworthy Block 4 rocket will remain in SpaceX’s fleet, and that Falcon 9 booster is understood to be undergoing refurbishment for its final reflight. That mission, however, is a suborbital demonstration designed to prove that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft can wrest its human passengers out of harm’s way in the event of a launch vehicle failure during flight (SpaceX already proved it can accomplish the same task while the rocket is still on the launch pad in a 2015 demo).
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1003509362906853376
No turning back now
While a critical path for SpaceX’s future of reliably delivering crew to orbit, its suborbital nature makes categorically distinct from past and future Falcon launches, all of which have been conducted with the intent of placing payload(s) into Earth orbit. Thus we arrive back at B1045 and CRS-15, currently scheduled as both SpaceX’s next launch and the final orbital mission before Falcon 9/Heavy Block 5 becomes the company’s only operational route to space for at least the next two years, give or take half a year. It’s thus somewhat poetic that the booster tasked with CRS-15 will easily smash SpaceX’s previous record for refurbishment (135 days) by almost a factor of two, going from drone ship recovery to reflight in as few as 71 days. Whatever it becomes, that refurbishment record will likely be broken by the first Block 5 reflight, a trend that will almost certainly continue until SpaceX reaches Musk’s fabled 24-hour turnaround, perhaps before the end of next year.
-
- A flight-proven Falcon 9, B1040, looking particularly well-done before its second and final launch on June 4. (Tom Cross)
-
- SES-12’s Block 4 booster roars into the air on its final flight. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon 9 Block 5 completed its first launch on May 11, carrying the Bangabandhu-1 communications satellite to geostationary transfer orbit. (Tom Cross)
-
- It may not immediately look like a major departure from past versions, but Block 5 could theoretically usher in 10-100 reflights of a single rocket booster. (SpaceX)
Extrapolating from the launch company’s recent history, the culmination of CRS-15 will potentially leave SpaceX with as few as two Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters as its entire flight-ready rocket fleet, despite anywhere from 12 to 16 launches remaining on the second half of the company’s 2018 manifest. Currently standing at six boosters produced in 2018, roughly eight to be completed before the end of the year per COO and President Gwynne Shotwell (in this case likely boosters B1048-1056), an achievement that would grow the ranks of the company’s fleet of new Block 5 boosters to ten total. But, assuming a core is delivered from the Hawthorne factory every month, SpaceX will need to reuse Block 5 boosters as early as July to prevent considerable delays to their 2018 manifest, delays that would undoubtedly push multiple missions into 2019.
Here’s to hoping that the Block 5 upgrade is as incredible of a success as SpaceX has designed it to be. Follow the Teslarati team for real-time updates, glimpses behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s 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
