News
SpaceX ships upgraded cargo spacecraft to Florida for first orbital Dragon rendezvous
SpaceX says it’s shipped the first upgraded Dragon 2 cargo spacecraft to Florida, opening the door for the first simultaneous spaceflight of two Dragons.
More or less a modified version of SpaceX’s rapidly maturing Crew Dragon spacecraft, the company says that Cargo Dragon 2 will be “able to carry 50% more science payloads” than the original Cargo Dragon. Cargo Dragon checked off numerous earthshaking milestones over its career, ultimately becoming the first privately-developed spacecraft to reach orbit, reenter, and splashdown; the first commercial spacecraft to rendezvous and deliver cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), and the first routinely-reused orbital capsule.
SpaceX retired the historic vehicle after it completed its 21st successful orbital launch and landing in April 2020, less than two months before Crew Dragon lifted off on an even more historic astronaut launch debut. Prior to Demo-2, Crew Dragon completed what both NASA and SpaceX deemed an almost unbelievably flawless uncrewed launch debut in March 2019. Now, two months after the spacecraft successfully returned two NASA astronauts from orbit to earth for the first time, SpaceX is gearing up for Crew Dragon’s operational astronaut launch debut at almost the exact same time as Cargo Dragon 2 is preparing for its own debut.
As of an October 10th update from NASA, SpaceX and the space agency have decided to delay Crew Dragon’s Crew-1 launch by several weeks to double and triple-check that a booster engine issue that aborted a recent Falcon 9 satellite launch has no common root with its sister rocket. Likely built side by side at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory, it’s not unreasonable to want to verify that Falcon 9 booster B1061 (Crew-1) is unaffected by the same issue that forced B1062 to abort its US military GPS III satellite launch on October 2nd.
As a result, Crew-1 has slipped from placeholder launch dates on October 23rd and October 31st to sometime in “early-to-mid November,” while most external sources suggest that a mid-to-late November target is more likely. NASA and SpaceX never confirmed the arrival but Crew Dragon capsule C207 likely reached Florida in late August or early September, where teams have since been outfitting and processing the spacecraft for final inspection and closeout procedures.
Meanwhile, SpaceX says it shipped the first Crew Dragon-derived Cargo Dragon to Florida several days ago, meaning that the company will soon begin simultaneous preflight processing of two upgraded Dragons for the first time. Notably, SpaceX offered no launch target in its CRS-21 update, though NASA planning documents – prior to recent Crew-1 delays – stated that the mission is scheduled to launch NET November 22nd.
In other words, CRS-21 and Crew-1 are currently scheduled to launch within the same roughly two-week period – a situation that could pose some unique problems. As of now, Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon 2 both have to launch from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A, as the pad is outfitted with a unique tower and Crew Access Arm (CAA) that both allows astronauts to board and cargo to be loaded. SpaceX’s Pad 39A turnaround record – the time between two launches from the same pad – is roughly 10 days and that figure is likely much higher for Crew Dragon missions.
If current dates hold, NASA will have to decide which SpaceX Dragon mission to launch first. Either way, though, it would take a major delay for CRS-21 and Crew-1 not to mark the first time that two SpaceX Dragon spacecraft will meet in orbit at the ISS. If successful, it’s safe to say that SpaceX will firmly solidify its position as the only spaceflight company on Earth truly capable of doing it all – from affordable and reusable rocket launches, crewed spaceflight, and space station resupply missions to orbital tourism and more.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
