News
SpaceX readies its California landing pad for September rocket recovery debut
Just as SpaceX successfully debuted Falcon 9 Block 5 at their California launch pad and returned drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) to rocket recovery duty after a nine-month leave, the company’s next West Coast mission is already aligning for an early-September launch. The mission, SAOCOM-1A, will feature yet another inaugural event – the first use of a West Coast landing pad less than a mile from SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad.
For the last two and a half years, SpaceX’s Florida launch sites (Pad 40 and Pad 39A) have also been privy to a unique secondary facility known as Landing Zone-1, located a few miles away from both pads inside the boundaries of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). In fact, although a number of attempts were made to recover a Falcon 9 booster aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) in 2015, the first successful Falcon 9 booster landing happened to occur at LZ-1, followed four months later by the first successful recovery by sea.
SLC-4E after a foggy launch of Iridium-7 at Vandenberg. #spacex #iridium7 pic.twitter.com/YQkXbpBooj
— Pauline Acalin (@w00ki33) July 25, 2018
Why land on land, why land at sea?
The primary draw of an equivalent land-based pad is both simple and massive: while SpaceX’s autonomous drone ship vessels are complex, comparatively easy to damage, and extremely expensive to both operate and maintain, a concrete circle on land has relatively tiny fixed and variable costs, does not have to concern itself with volatile ocean conditions, and does not require a fleet of tugboats and service vessels to operate. Rough estimates place the cost of taking a drone ship, tugboat, and crew transport vessel hundreds of miles off the coast on missions that can last 7-14 days anywhere from $500,000 to $2 million or more, depending on how you tabulate costs. Either way, the drone ship fleet will always be more complex and more expensive than simple concrete pads on land.
One problem with land-based landing zones is that returning rockets to their launch sites is very fuel-intensive, requiring propellant margins at booster stage separation that dramatically reduce the payload that can be placed into low Earth orbit (LEO), let alone higher-energy missions to geostationary orbit. As such, without massive performance improvements, drone ships like JRTI and OCISLY will be irreplaceable for as long as Falcon 9 and Heavy are flying – SpaceX simply cannot recover rockets during the geostationary launches that comprise a huge portion of their manifest unless they have those vessels.
-
- Elon Musk walks among his recovered Falcon Heavy boosters at LZ-1 and 2. (Elon Musk)
-
- The drone ship Of Course I Still Love You spotted in Port Canaveral, FL last December. (Instagram /u/ johnabc123)
-
- West Coast drone ship Just Read The Instructions headed out to sea to catch a Block 5 booster on July 22. It succeeded. (Pauline Acalin)
This brings us to another conundrum. SpaceX’s Florida launch facilities support heavy commercial geostationary satellite launches as much as or more than any other type of payload in a given year of launches, meaning that the company’s now-doubled landing pad at LZ-1 is only used every once and awhile for Cargo Dragon launches and other miscellaneous and rare launches that leave enough margin in Falcon 9. SpaceX’s Vandenberg pad, on the other hand, is effectively bound to launching satellites into polar orbits (orbiting over Earth’s poles versus around the equator) – safety regulations prevent large rockets from launching over populated areas like the entire continental U.S., as an example for California launches.
Equatorial launches from East to West are much less efficient than their opposite, as Earth’s own rotation (West to East) provides rockets an appreciable performance boost. The point is that SpaceX’s Vandenberg launches are for fairly particular payloads, usually LEO communications satellites and imaging satellites that thrive in polar orbits, where one or a handful of satellites can observe almost anywhere on Earth over the course of a normal 24-hour. Those satellites also happen to be lightweight more often than not, meaning that many of the booster recoveries on drone ship JRTI could instead return to launch site (RTLS) for a dramatically simpler and cheaper recovery.
Enter Block 5
A West Coast LZ is even more intriguing and important with respect to the recent debut of Falcon 9 Block 5 at Vandenberg and the fact that all future launches. Even compared to SpaceX’s Florida LZ-1, the company’s Western pad is incredibly close to the launch pad. By landing less than a mile from SpaceX’s VAFB integration and refurbishment facilities (and launch pad), recovery and refurbishment operations should be more effortless than any before it.
-
- SpaceX’s yet-unused Californian Landing Zone, seen ahead of Falcon 9 Block 5’s Iridium-7 debut. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s Vandenberg launch pad (right) and landing zone (left) ahead of the pad’s first Falcon 9 Block 5 launch, Iridium-7. (Pauline Acalin)
While the company’s VAFB launch pad is a bit older than its Eastern cousins and requires at least 3-5 weeks between launches for repairs and refurbishment, that relaxed schedule may be unbeatable for proving out the Block 5 upgrade’s true rapid reusability, as well as its ability to far more than two orbital missions per booster lifespan. SAOCOM-1A, one of two Argentinian Earth observations scheduled for launch with SpaceX, will begin that new era for SpaceX’s Vandenberg operations, including a landing pad debut permit officially granted by the FCC in the last few weeks. The Falcon 9 booster that launches that mission is bound to have a storied future ahead of itself.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
