For the fourth time in nine months, SpaceX has docked a Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station with a second Dragon already present at the crewed orbital laboratory.
Launched Saturday on a Falcon 9 rocket after a one-day weather delay, SpaceX’s first upgraded Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft gradually boosted and tweaked its orbit over the course of ~30 hours, looping around the Earth 20+ times before docking with the ISS more than half an hour ahead of schedule. Dragon’s Monday, August 30th arrival marked cargo capsule C208’s second space station docking in nine months, smashing SpaceX and the world’s turnaround record for a reusable orbital space capsule – of which Dragons are the only still flying.
SpaceX’s first twice-flown Crew Dragon was there to greet the first twice-flown Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft when it docked, having spent the last four months in orbit in support of NASA’s second operational commercial crew mission (Crew-2). A similar instance of a pair Dragons meeting in space is likely to occur at least two more times before the end of 2021.
The first two-Dragons-one-ISS instance occurred just nine months ago when the very same Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft (capsule C208) rendezvoused and docked with the ISS with SpaceX’s Crew-1 Crew Dragon already attached. At the time, in a number of press conferences and public statements centered around the launch of Crew-1 and CRS-21, SpaceX repeatedly hinted at just how prolific a year 2021 would be for Dragon and it’s hard to argue that the company was exaggerating.
Indeed, exactly as SpaceX foretold, Dragon spacecraft have maintained a continuous presence in orbit and repeatedly operated side by side at the ISS since Crew-1’s November 2021 launch. For the majority of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program development, that degree of continuous, single-provider operations was never meant to happen. SpaceX’s upgraded Cargo Dragon, for example, is one of two independent Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) spacecraft that regularly resupply the space station, ensuring redundancy in the event that one spacecraft or rocket runs into major issues. A third CRS vehicle – Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser spaceplane – will also begin cargo deliveries sometime next year.
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program was structured in the same way, with Boeing and SpaceX serving as two redundant crew transport providers. Of course, things didn’t go exactly according to plan and Boeing – despite receiving 60% (~$2B) more funding than SpaceX – has suffered numerous catastrophic issues in recent years, nearly dooming its Starliner spacecraft’s first uncrewed launch in December 2019 and ultimately delaying the company by two or more years.
After further issues delayed Starliner’s uncrewed do-over test flight (OFT-2) from August to late 2021 or early 2022, it’s entirely possible that SpaceX will operate as NASA’s sole crew transport solution for more than 18 months before Boeing flies a single astronaut. In other words, it’s likely that SpaceX will need to maintain the extraordinary cadence of Dragon launches demonstrated in 2021 well into 2022, and possibly even 2023. Since November 2020, SpaceX has launched three Cargo Dragon 2 resupply missions and eight astronauts on two Crew Dragons.
Another two NASA Dragon missions – Crew-3 and CRS-24 – are scheduled to launch in October and December 2021 and SpaceX’s first fully private Inspiration4 Crew Dragon launch could happen as early as September 15th. So long as Boeing’s Starliner is unable to fulfill its crew transport role, all future SpaceX Crew and Cargo missions for NASA – including Crew-3 and CRS-24 – will continue to see one Dragon meet another at the ISS. All told, barring possible delays to CRS-24, SpaceX is on track to launch eight Dragons – four Crew and four Cargo; 16 astronauts and 11 tons of space station supplies – in 13 months.
If Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon 2 are considered to be two variants of the same Dragon 2 spacecraft, the only other instance in history where another orbital spacecraft came close to eight successful orbital launches in ~13 months was NASA’s Gemini Program, which completed eight crewed test flights in ~14 months in 1965 and 1966.
NASA’s Apollo spacecraft also completed six successful flights (5 crewed, 1 uncrewed) in 13 months in 1968 and 1969. Russian Soyuz vehicles – the most prolific crewed spacecraft in history – have also successfully flown 8 times in 13 months and 9 times in 14 months in the 1970s. Put simply, SpaceX’s Dragon program is now singlehandedly executing at or above the level of the two most prolific national space programs in history at funding peaks that haven’t been touched since and for a fraction of the cost.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
