News
SpaceX still eyeing back-to-back East and West Coast launches this weekend
Update #2: SpaceX’s Starlink-15 launch has slipped to Sunday, November 22nd, roughly 36 hours after Sentinel 6A’s scheduled November 21st launch.
Update: Three days later, there’s still a chance that SpaceX will be ready to attempt back-to-back East and West Coast Falcon 9 launches on Saturday, November 21st, potentially launching twice in exactly ten hours if schedules hold.
On the West Coast, a new Falcon 9 rocket has successfully completed a routine static fire test and is likely just hours away from rolling out to SpaceX Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E). The rocket is scheduled to place the international Sentinel 6A oceanographic satellite into a polar orbit, followed by booster B1063’s first landing attempt at Landing Zone 4 (LZ-4).
On the East Coast, Falcon 9 and 60 more Starlink v1.0 satellites went vertical at SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) pad. It’s unclear if SpaceX will perform a prelaunch static fire test despite the fact that the Starlink-15 mission will be booster B1049’s seventh flight – a first for SpaceX and orbital-class reusable rocketry.
Oddly, SpaceX has yet to update its website with details or confirmation of the two back-to-back launch attempts, raising the possibility of one or both being delayed, but hardware at the pad remains an unequivocal confirmation that at least one of the missions is close to liftoff. As usual, whenever Sentinel 6A and Starlink-15 do launch, SpaceX will host an official webcast on its YouTube channel.
SpaceX appears to be on track to attempt two separate Falcon 9 launches and landings within the same ten-hour, also marking the company’s 14th Starlink mission this year and first West Coast launch in a year and a half.
After overcoming a range of minor issues, replacing two Falcon 9 booster engines, effectively reactivating a dormant orbital launch complex, and doing all of the above to a standard capable of satisfying NASA’s strict expectations, SpaceX is officially set to launch the Sentinel 6A oceanography satellite no earlier than (NET) 9:17 am PST (16:17 UTC) Saturday, November 21st. The twist: Falcon 9 will be launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California for the first time since June 2019.
Meanwhile, back on the East Coast, SpaceX has successfully completed Crew Dragon’s operational astronaut launch debut, clearing the company to focus on its third November mission – Starlink V1 L15. Set to be SpaceX’s 14th dedicated Starlink launch in 2020 alone, Starlink-15 is currently scheduled to lift off NET 10:17 pm EDT (03:17 UTC) on November 21st – coincidentally exactly ten hours of Falcon 9’s Sentinel 6A launch.
SpaceX’s Sentinel 6A launch will debut new Falcon 9 booster B1063, first spotted on its way from the company’s McGregor, Texas test facilities to VAFB in late August. Unfortunately, when Falcon 9 booster B1062 suffered a last-second abort on October 2nd, the Merlin 1D booster engine issue ultimately deemed responsible for the anomaly was also traced back to B1061 and B1063.
As a result, SpaceX chose to replace an average of two Merlin 1D engines on each of the three boosters in a process that took several weeks. Additional difficulty was added due to the fact that all three new boosters were assigned to high-profile missions for exceptionally strict NASA and US military customers, necessitating extra caution and verification. Regardless of the hurdles, SpaceX managed to complete an entire complex rocket engine anomaly investigation in less than six weeks, determining the root cause, replicating the failure mode with individual engine static fires, replacing multiple engines on multiple boosters, and recertifying all three boosters for their respective flights.
Falcon 9 B1062 successfully launched the US military’s GPS III SV04 satellite on November 5th, followed by Falcon 9 B1061’s flawless four-astronaut launch on November 15th. Of the three impacted boosters, only B1063 remains and is scheduled to launch just four days from now. Barring surprises, all three will likely support one or several dozen more launches in the coming years.
Meanwhile, SpaceX’s November 21st Starlink-15 launch is expected to feature Falcon 9 B1049 in what will become the first time the same rocket booster flies for the seventh time. In essence, if successful, Starlink-15 will effectively mean that SpaceX is 70% of the way towards achieving its longstanding goal of ten launches per booster.
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
