News
United Launch Alliance successfully test fires new Vulcan rocket
United Launch Alliance successfully test-fires new Vulcan rocket
Following a successful Flight Tanking Test (FTT), United Launch Alliance fired up the Vulcan rocket for the first time last night. The two Blue Origin-built BE-4 rocket engines ignited for 6 seconds and pushed ULA closer to their maiden launch of the rocket.
United Launch Alliance stated they are more than 98 percent through the qualification program for Vulcan, and after reviewing data from the Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) and closing the Centaur V anomaly investigation, they will then announce launch plans.
Ignition of the Blue Origin built BE-4 engines (Credit United Launch Alliance)
During this test firing, the BE-4 engines ignited at T- 4.88 seconds and ramped up to 60% power for 2 seconds before powering down.
The United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket has faced many delays leading up to this moment, most recently experiencing an anomaly of the Centaur V upper stage that was undergoing qualification testing at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.
ULA is currently conducting an investigation into the cause of the anomaly, and according to ULA CEO Tory Bruno, they found the issue was on the Centaur upper stage itself, but they are still determining if changes will need to be made to its current flight article that is stacked on Vulcan.
? Let’s relive that beautiful #VulcanRocket Flight Readiness Firing! #CountdowntoVulcan ? pic.twitter.com/WqPe3jbpiW
— ULA (@ulalaunch) June 8, 2023
Prior to this unexpected issue, Blue Origin originally had planned to deliver two of their flight-ready BE-4 engines to ULA for integration onto the Vulcan rocket by 2020, but various delays in qualifications and testing meant their delivery slipped significantly to late 2022.
Following their integration onto the Vulcan rocket’s first stage, it was then shipped aboard ULA’s ‘RocketShip’ down the Mississippi River, through the Gulf of Mexico, and after rounding the southern tip of Florida to Port Canaveral, Florida, after which it was unloaded and then transported to the Vertical Integration Facility at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
Vulcan stands at SLC-40 prior to its Flight Readiness Firing (Credit United Launch Alliance)
This FRF test comes before the planned Summer launch of Vulcan Centaur carrying Astrobotics Peregrine Lunar lander and Amazon’s first two Kuiper satellites, their answer to the SpaceX Starlink satellite constellation.
Also known as the CERT-1 flight, the Vulcan Centaur rocket needs to perform 2 successful launches to qualify to launch national security payloads for the U.S. Space Force and other government payloads.
The second flight will feature the first launch of the Sierra Space Dream Chaser space plane, which will deliver supplies to the International Space Station. As of now, the majority of the payload manifest for Vulcan Centaur is Amazon’s Kuiper satellite constellation and U.S. Space Force national security missions.
The Vulcan Centaur rocket has a few configurations available to suit multiple payload sizes, the rocket can fly with just the 2 BE-4 engines delivering 1.1 million pounds of thrust at sea level to flying with 2, 4, or 6 solid rocket boosters and with 6 SRB’s it would bring its thrust up to 3.8 million pounds.
This would make the Vulcan Centaur capable of delivering 60,000 lbs (27,200 kg) to low Earth orbit or 25,400 lbs (11,500 kg) to the Moon. ULA is also working toward its SMART re-use system, which will allow the 2 BE-4 engines to separate from the first stage, and after an inflatable heatshield deploys, they would return to Earth and splash down for recovery and refurb for their next mission.
However, it is unknown when ULA will begin using this capability.
Questions or comments? Shoot me an email @ rangle1555@gmail.com, or Tweet me @RDAnglePhoto.
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
