News
SpaceX doubleheader struck down by poor weather
Update: The first of two SpaceX launch attempts scheduled on Tuesday, November 22nd has been called off by poor weather. The weather for the second attempt, carrying a Eutelsat communications satellite, is expected to be just as poor, but SpaceX is still working towards a 9:57 pm EST (02:57 UTC) launch in spite of CRS-26’s bad luck.
SpaceX says it will attempt to launch two Falcon 9 rockets six hours apart after delaying a mission that was scheduled to lift off on November 21st.
The weather at Cape Canaveral is expected to be poor, with just a 10% chance of favorable conditions. But SpaceX says it will still attempt to launch the Eutelsat 10B communications satellite around 9:57 pm EST (2:57 UTC) on Tuesday, November 22nd, after delaying a November 21st attempt “to allow for additional pre-flight checkouts.” Only a few days prior, SpaceX indefinitely delayed a different Falcon 9 launch after apparently uncovering a problem during prelaunch testing. That problem was significant enough for SpaceX’s West Coast drone ship to return to port, guaranteeing a multi-day delay.
Despite back-to-back delays caused by apparent technical issues with two other Falcon 9 rockets, SpaceX’s next Cargo Dragon resupply mission to the International Space Station remains on track to launch as early as 3:54 pm EST (20:54 UTC) on November 22nd.
In the days prior, even Dragon’s CRS-26 mission didn’t escape unscathed. SpaceX discovered a small leak in the Dragon spacecraft earlier this month, forcing it to push the launch from November 21st to November 22nd. Before that, CRS-26 was delayed from November 18th to the 21st in the wake of Hurricane Nicole. Out of coincidence, the combination of the hurricane, Dragon leak, and unspecified issues with Eutelsat 10B’s rocket or payload have placed the launches just over six hours apart.
24 hours out, US Space Launch Delta 45 (formerly the 45th Space Wing) predicts just a 10% chance of favorable conditions for CRS-26 and Eutelsat 10B. The odds that both launches will thread a different 1-in-10 needle six hours apart are not great. Eutelsat 10B has a backup window on November 23rd with a 60% chance of favorable weather, while CRS-26’s next opportunity is November 26th.
CRS-26 will launch several thousand pounds of food, water, supplies, and a third set of upgraded solar arrays to the International Space Station (ISS). The mission will debut a new Falcon 9 booster (B1076) and the fourth and final reusable Cargo Dragon 2 spacecraft (Capsule C211).
In an unusual first, Eutelsat 10B will be the third SpaceX launch this month to intentionally expend a Falcon booster as Falcon 9 B1049 – the oldest in the fleet – flies its eleventh and final mission. The well-worn booster’s sacrifice will help boost the 5.5-ton (~12,000 lb) Eutelsat 10B communications satellite into a higher transfer orbit than usual, likely shaving weeks off the orbit-raising process and allowing it to enter service sooner. SpaceX will still attempt to recover Falcon 9’s payload fairing (nosecone) halves more than a thousand kilometers downrange.
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
