News
SpaceX closes in on West Coast Starlink launches with lease for drone ship dock space
Amid a major hiring push and calls for monthly launches, SpaceX has taken its latest step towards launching Starlink satellites from the West Coast with a lease for rocket recovery ship dock space at the Port of Long Beach.
News of the port lease broke on April 26th with a tweet from the mayor of Long Beach, California after the Port of Long Beach (POLB) Commission voted to approve SpaceX’s 24-month sublease with an effective start date of May 1st, 2021. From 2014 to 2020, a massive floating rocket launch complex and associated service ships once used by SeaLaunch called POLB’s Pier 16 home while mothballed and the company left behind a decent amount of infrastructure when it vacated the facility last year.
That includes a ~5600 square meter (~65,000 sq ft) warehouse and office space formerly used to process SeaLaunch payloads and Ukrainian Zenit rockets, as well as a pier and dock space generally optimized for loading and unloading large rockets from rocket transport ships. In other words, Pier 16 is a perfect fit for SpaceX’s needs.
The news came as a surprise because SpaceX already has a lease for several berths and dock space at Port of San Pedro, which – along with Port of Long Beach – makes up the greater Port of Los Angeles. SpaceX has used those facilities for the better part of a decade – initially to support Dragon spacecraft recoveries but later as a hub for drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) and fairing recovery ship Mr. Steven (later Ms. Tree).
SpaceX has a bit of a sordid history with port leases over the last several years after twice entering and backing out of Port of Los Angeles (San Pedro) lease agreements to build a Starship factory directly on the water in 2018 and 2020. This time around, POLB commission documents indicate that this new lease is not the third in a line of ill-fated Starship factory plans – but instead a simple relocation of existing West Coast Falcon rocket recovery operations just two miles east of their current home.
It’s unclear why exactly SpaceX is leasing much larger berth and dock space at a port in competition with its current Port of Los Angeles landlord or if Pier 16 will be an addition to – or a replacement for – its current berths to the west. At approximately $100,000 per month, Pier 16 will be substantially more expensive, ruling out cost savings, which could mean that SpaceX has reason to believe that its West Coast rocket recovery operations are going to experience a substantial uptick in activity in the near future.
Indeed, in retrospect, SpaceX’s current Port of San Pedro berths and dock space have always been fairly limited, offering just enough space for a few small tents on concrete and a drone ship and two support vessels to park end to end. Assuming SpaceX moves all operations to Pier 16 and closes out its San Pedro lease, the new facilities should offer a bit more dock space along the pier itself, as well as far more room – and an existing warehouse with offices – to process recovered Falcon boosters and fairings.
Over half a decade of operations, SpaceX recovered Falcon boosters with drone ship JRTI just seven times (of eight attempts) on the West Coast, making it clear why the company simply chose to make do with close quarters and a barebones dockside setup. Now, however, SpaceX appears to be preparing its Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) launch site and associated Port of LA recovery assets for a far more ambitious period of Falcon 9 launch activity.
Other observations support that conclusion. Over the last six or so months, SpaceX has been aggressively hiring to fully outfit its VAFB SLC-4 launch pad after supporting just two West Coast launches in the last ~28 months. Most notably, hiring ‘flyers’ distributed on social media by SpaceX employees touted a target of monthly launches from the company’s West Coast pad – an unprecedented cadence over the decade SpaceX has leased it.
First reported by Spaceflight Now, SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell recently revealed that the company intends to begin dedicated polar Starlink launches from Vandenberg as early as this summer – July 2021 if taken literally. Other “industry officials” reportedly corroborated those plans.
With its hiring campaign finally starting to slow down and a new Port of Long Beach lease set to open on May 1st, the only real ‘missing link’ for SpaceX’s plans to restart regular West Coast Falcon 9 launches is the fleet of ships the company will need to recover Falcon boosters and payload fairings. To maximize efficiency, dedicated polar Starlink launches will require Falcon 9 boosters to land far downrange and will be even more challenging than the rocket’s now-routine missions to low Earth orbit (LEO), which require almost every ounce of performance the rocket can give.
SpaceX transported its second drone ship – Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) – across the Panama Canal from Port of LA to Port Canaveral, Florida in 2019, where it still operates today. To achieve SpaceX’s planned cadence of up to 48 launches in 2021, the company will almost certainly need both drone ships on the East Coast. A third drone ship – named A Shortfall Of Gravitas (ASOG) – has been in the works for years, though SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has long described the vessel as an addition to the company’s Florida fleet that would enable Falcon Heavy to land all three first-stage boosters at sea for maximum payload capacity.
For now, we’ll just have to wait and see if SpaceX intends to send that third drone ship directly to California to support an imminent series of polar Starlink launches.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
