News
SpaceX settles on Thursday for first Falcon 9 launch of 2021
After a few days of delays, SpaceX appears to have settled on Thursday, January 7th for the first of several dozen Falcon 9 launches planned in 2021.
Originally scheduled to launch as early as January 4th, SpaceX’s Turksat 5A communications satellite launch was “placed TBD due to mission assurance” on January 1st – an unfortunate catch-all euphemism often used by launch providers in lieu of any real explanation for delays. Regardless, Next Spaceflight reports that Turksat 5A will be Falcon 9 B1060’s fourth launch, a milestone the first stage (booster) has reached just six months after its first flight.
Despite the minor delay, SpaceX’s current target of four launches this month is still well within reach even though the slip exemplifies the uphill battle the company will face as it aims to achieve CEO Elon Musk’s goal of 48 launches in 2021. Weather is currently 60% favorable for SpaceX’s first launch of the year and Turksat 5A is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 8:28 pm EST on January 7th (01:28 UTC, 8 Jan).
Good timing, too — the 45th said SpaceX’s next launch of Turksat was “placed TBD due to mission assurance.”— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 1, 2021
New forecast (60% favorable) and hazard area: pic.twitter.com/cEapdSd2DP— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) January 5, 2021
Unfortunately, SpaceX’s first launch of the new year has been steeped in unprecedented controversy for the company, including the first-ever instance of mass-protests at its Hawthorne, California factory and headquarters. The reason: Turksat 5A, while partially meant for civilian communications, will also support the Turkish military, which supported Azerbaijan after the country – unprovoked – reignited a long-simmering conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in September 2020.
Stemming from events that transpired over the last several centuries, Armenian-Azeri conflict and Turkish involvement are extraordinarily complex and messy. In the 1910s and 1920s, Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) infamously committed atrocities against Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek communities within its occupied territory in a process of “Turkification”, systematically killing 1-3 million people in what would ultimately be labeled genocide. In a separate but related conflict, Turkey eventually chose to support Azerbaijan’s claim to the ethnically (75-90%) and historically Armenian territory, backing the country against Armenia in the first Nagorno-Karabakh War in the 1990s.
Azerbaijan reignited the conflict in 2020, resulting in the deaths of at least 6000 combatants and civilians on both sides and ultimately securing a substantial portion of Nagorno-Karabakh territory as part of a November 2020 ceasefire agreement. To an extent, Nagorno-Karabakh’s borders are now more or less back to where they were before the first war in the 1990s. While an avoidable loss of life is inherently deplorable, it’s extremely difficult to say whether Azerbaijan was justified but it and Turkey’s history of systematic and discriminatory hostility towards Armenians leaves little benefit of the doubt worth giving.
Ultimately, that cloud of ambiguity makes it hard to directly fault SpaceX for choosing to launch Turksat 5A or for its contracts to launch Turksat 5B and future domestically-built satellites. Additionally, if SpaceX should be criticized for willingly launching the satellite, Airbus – contracted by Turkey to build Turksat 5A – is at least as worthy of critique but has yet to be included at all in protest discourse despite the fact that Turkey’s production contract was publicly announced in 2017.
In the history of spaceflight, a satellite that is completed but never launches is all but unheard of, as the inherent bureaucratic and financial inertia behind a launch campaign mere months away from its scheduled liftoff is obviously immense. Even if SpaceX were to accept major financial penalties and back out of its contract, Arianespace, Roscosmos, or ULA would assuredly accept any replacement contract.
For protestors still set on making an impact, the shrewd move would be to redirect attention on future Turkish satellite projects like Turksat 5B, 6A, and beyond with the intention of killing contracts in the cradle – a far more tenable goal.
Stay tuned for more launch details as SpaceX nears its first mission of 2021.
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
