News
SpaceX on track to launch 20 Falcon 9 rockets in the first half of 2021
The second half of SpaceX’s June 2021 flight schedule has begun to firm up, raising the odds of another four-launch month as the end of the first half of 2021 fast approaches.
In an increasing rarity among a slew of pandemic and shortage-stricken satellites, rockets, and launch flows, SpaceX’s fourth upgraded GPS III satellite launch for the US military has remained on track for more than four months and has had a firm launch date for more than eight weeks. Further, the GPS III SV05 navigation satellite’s launch schedule actually moved up from July 2021 and has been scheduled to launch no earlier than June 17th, 2021 since mid-April. The only noteworthy change made in the subsequent two months was a minor shift in launch time, which was moved from 6-9 pm EDT to a 15-minute window stretching from 12:09 pm to 12:24 pm (16:09-16:24 UTC).
More recently, Spaceflight Now was first to report that Transporter-2 – SpaceX’s second dedicated Smallsat Program mission and fourth June 2021 launch – settled on a launch target sometime during daylight on June 24th. A large portion of rideshare payload integration – assembling a massive ‘stack’ of dozens of satellites and dispensers – has already been completed, improving the odds that Transporter-2 will launch on schedule.
As was SpaceX’s main intent with its Smallsat Program, the company effectively closes the metaphorical doors on a given Transporter mission around a week before launch. From then on, if issues arise with any minor integrated rideshare payload or something delays a planned payload from being integrated in time, the customer is more or less automatically rebooked on SpaceX’s next Transporter mission. That means that delays or pre-launch anomalies that inevitably impact a small fraction of a dedicated rideshare mission’s total payloads don’t end up delaying dozens to 100+ other spacecraft.
Crucially, for the unlucky few customers that find themselves essentially booted off the bus, SpaceX nominally rebooks them at no extra charge on the next Transporter mission. While the program is only just beginning, SpaceX has already scheduled four dedicated Transporter launches between January 2021 and Q1 2022, meaning that payloads unable to launch on their scheduled flight will have to wait approximately six months for the next launch opportunity. While undoubtedly more than a little inconvenient, SpaceX is effectively betting that customers are willing to trade some degree of flexibility for low prices and launch dates firmly scheduled months in advance.
So far, that bet has unequivocally paid off and SpaceX has secured contracts to launch hundreds of rideshare payloads in just a few years.
Meanwhile, SpaceX’s June 17th GPS III SV05 mission will be the first time ever that the US military launches a “national security” payload on a flight-proven commercial rocket. Falcon 9 booster B1062 debuted with the successful launch of GPS III SV04 in November 2020. Seven months later, GPS III SV05 will be its second launch. If successful, it’s likely that the US military will allow SpaceX to use Falcon 9 B1062 a third time to launch GPS III SV06 – tentatively scheduled sometime in Q4 2021 or early 2022.
If both GPS III SV05 and Transporter-2 missions are successful, June 2021 will be SpaceX’s third four-launch month ever, representing an average of 48 launches per year if sustained for 12 months. All four June launches are also for paying customers, bringing welcome revenue to an H1 2021 manifest that’s been almost entirely populated by internal Starlink missions. Perhaps most significantly, a four-launch June will also mark 20 orbital SpaceX launches in the first half of 2021, leaving the company on track to achieve 40 launches this year if it can replicate that success in the second half.
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
