News
SpaceX’s West Coast drone ship begins Panama Canal transit on journey to Florida (or Texas)
After traveling more than 3500 miles (5600 km), SpaceX autonomous spaceport drone ship (ASDS) Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) began its eastbound transit of the Panama Canal on August 18th, placing the vessel roughly two-thirds of the way to its unknown destination.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, JRTI’s move came as a bit of a surprise and it’s still anyone’s bet if the SpaceX recovery vessel heads for Texas or Florida immediately after exiting the Panama Canal. Nevertheless, JRTI’s presence at either (or, more likely, both) possible destinations arguably centers around the imminent demands of a planned ramp of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite constellation launch cadence, as well as an equally imminent need for recovery assets to support the first suborbital Starship test flights.
On July 31st, JRTI departed Port of Los Angeles – its home for the last four years – under tow behind tugboat Alice C. The duo arrived at the Canal on August 15th and, after a several-day wait in a large passage queue, the drone ship and its paired tugboat are finally on their way through the canal, although traffic still remains high and another day (or several) of waiting is likely in order.
After successfully making it through the first half of the transit, JRTI and Alice C are currently waiting in line while westbound traffic is routed through. That wait will likely last hours, not days, (hopefully) allowing JRTI to exit the canal on Tuesday or Wednesday, leaving drone ship free to head towards its final destination.
JRTI has two possible destinations: Port of Brownsville, Texas or Port Canaveral, Florida. Both options are roughly 1800 mi (3000 km) from the Panama Canal’s western mouth and, extrapolating from the first major leg of the journey, should take Alice C around 8 days to tow JRTI across the finish line. Barring mishaps, the drone ship should thus be able to arrive at its new home sometime in the final week of August – roughly August 27th to the 31st.
To the East, to the Gulf
As previously discussed on Teslarati, there are good cases to make for both potential drone ship destinations. On the East Coast, SpaceX’s plans to ramp up its internal Starlink launch cadence could require multiple drone ship to prevent those ambitions from seriously impacting the company’s commercial launch manifest. The readiness of one or two of the payloads is uncertain, but SpaceX has anywhere from seven to nine Falcon 9 launches scheduled in Q4 2019, requiring a cadence significantly higher than SpaceX’s activity in the first half of 2019.
At the same time, extrapolating from SpaceX’s H1 2019 cadence (1.33 launches per month), more than doubling that average cadence to 3 launches per month in the final quarter seems ambitious, at a minimum. SpaceX has achieved six-launch quarters several times in the last few years, likely a reasonable expectation for Q4 2019. In short, this is all to say that SpaceX has made do with one drone ship in the past while hitting similar launch cadences, meaning that the need for JRTI at Port Canaveral is probably not urgent.
On the Gulf Coast, SpaceX has established a Starship development facility in Boca Chica, Texas, just a handful of miles north of the southernmost tip of Texas. A full-scale, low-fidelity prototype known as Starhopper completed its first test flight on July 25th and is likely just days away from a second test flight. Meanwhile, SpaceX Boca Chica is simultaneously assembling what CEO Elon Musk has described as the “Mk1” orbital Starship prototype and is making spectacularly rapid progress.
Musk recently tweeted that SpaceX’s Mk1 Starship and a second parallel build – Starship Mk2 – could be ready for their first (suborbital) flights as early as late-September or October, followed by one of the spacecraft’s first orbital launch attempt an incredibly ambitious “2-3 months after” the first test flight. Per additional statements from Musk in 2018 and 2019, SpaceX plans to subject either or both of its Mk1 and Mk1 Starships to a high-altitude, high-velocity test program before proceeding to orbital launch attempts.
Said extreme testing could easily involve Starship traveling on high suborbital trajectories dozens or even hundreds of miles above Earth’s surface, potentially demanding an ocean-going landing platform far downrange. Given that Starship is in its very early stages of integrated development, any downrange assets (i.e. JRTI) needed for test flights will need to be very flexible, as Starship launch attempts could easily slip days or weeks with little to no notice.
Best of both worlds
Although pitting options against each other is entertaining and has its uses, the fact remains that once drone ship JRTI has passed through the Panama Canal, traveling from, say, Florida to Texas or vice versa is far less arduous a journey than the trip from Port of LA. In other words, moving JRTI between Port of Brownsville and Port Canaveral every few months should be very little trouble, easily allowing the drone ship to service both Gulf and East Coast recovery needs.
Given that SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 launch is believed to be no earlier than late-October, it’s not even out of the question that JRTI will stop in Brownsville for one month or several before heading to Port Canaveral as SpaceX attempts to complete a very busy Q4 2019 launch manifest. Stay tuned…
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
