News
US Air Force issues RFP for massive rockets, SpaceX’s BFR could be one of them
The US Air Force has released a Request For Proposal (RFP) that hopes to fund the development of multiple heavy-lift rocket prototypes to launch no later than 2021. The USAF specified on October 5 that it wants to partially fund prototype development for at least three promising US-sourced launch vehicles, while maintaining the options to select none of the proposals or even more than three. The purpose of these broad strokes is to provide the Air Force and US military in general redundant access to space by way of “at least two domestic…launch service providers” capable of meeting National Security Space (NSS) requirements.
However unlikely it may seem, NASA experienced this firsthand when two of the vehicles it funded, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Orbital-ATK’s Antares, experienced complete failures within less than a year of each other. Both vehicle failures destroyed supplies intended for the International Space Station and forced NASA to rely on Soyuz missions to fill the gaps created while producing considerable uncertainty for the agency. By funding two or more independent launch vehicles, the Air Force would lessen the impact of such failures, and this assured access is rightly perceived as an invaluable commodity in the military.
-
- .While SpaceX’s own visualizations are gorgeous and thrilling in their own rights, Romax’s interpretation adds an unparalleled level of shock and awe. (SpaceX)
-
- A render of Blue Origin’s larger New Glenn vehicle. (Blue Origin)
-
- The only current render of OATK’s Next Generation Launcher. (OATK)
Several details in the latest proposal make it relatively easy to name the obvious prospective applicants. The payload requirements necessitate heavy lift or even super-heavy lift launch vehicles capable of placing anywhere from 5,000 to 37,500 pounds into a variety of Earth orbits, ranging from low Earth orbit (~500 mi) to direct transfer geostationary orbits (~19,200 mi). This narrows the field considerably, pushing out all smaller-scale vehicles. Also telling is a requirement that proposed launch vehicles make use of rocket propulsion systems (RPS) already funded for development by the USAF if at all possible.
Considering the inherently complex and difficult process of developing massive rockets, initial launch dates no later than 2021 (or 2024) likely mean that the vehicles being considered must already be under some level of serious development. This leaves us with four possible options in the US, undoubtedly not a coincidence given the RFP’s explicit goal of facilitating the creation of “at least three…prototypes as early as possible” and “at least two domestic…launch service providers”. These four vehicles are SpaceX’s BFR, Blue Origin’s New Glenn, ULA’s Vulcan, and Orbital-ATK’s NGL, all of which already have tentative inaugural launch dates clustered from 2019 to 2022. Perhaps even more revealing, all four vehicles can be expected to utilize several rocket propulsion systems (rocket engines) already funded by the Air Force, namely SpaceX’s Raptor, Blue Origin’s BE-4 and BE-3U, and Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1.
While the development of BE-4 and AR-1 have been somewhat veiled, SpaceX’s Raptor engine has publicly made a great deal of progress. As discussed during Elon Musk’s IAC 2017 presentation, the company has conducted an array of successful tests with its subscale Raptor program, to the tune of 42 individual hot-fire tests totaling more than 1,200 seconds. Musk also reported that the only thing preventing tests longer than 100 seconds was the size of the propellant tanks at the test stand, a genuinely impressive accomplishment if true. The sticking point, however, is how much difficulty SpaceX will have as they transfer to full-scale Raptor testing. The subscale Raptors being tested have a reported thrust of 1,000 kN, whereas the new full-scale thrust targets for BFR have settled on 1,700-1,900 kN, considerably smaller than the 3,000 kN figure from 2016 but still nearly a factor of two larger than the test articles SpaceX has had success with. In fact, educated speculation from SpaceX fans suggest that the operational Raptor as shown in 2017 may only need to be about 15% larger than the current test article(s). The pressure the full-size engine operates at will be considerably higher, so SpaceX’s work is not done by any means, but the company’s next-gen rocket propulsion system is arguably far closer to completion than any of its competitors’ offerings.
-
- SpaceX’s subscale Raptor engine has completed more than 1200 seconds of testing in less than two years. (SpaceX)
-
- A subscale version of BE-4 testing staged combustion and nozzle technology. (Blue Origin)
-
- Aerojet-Rocketdyne’s AR-1 preburner conducted its first successful test earlier this year. (AR)
As far as we are publicly aware, SpaceX’s subscale Raptor testing has yet to result in a major failure and has largely been a great success. Blue Origin’s BE-4 is known to have experienced at least one critical failure during hot-fire testing, while AR-1 has not yet begun full engine tests but is well into concrete hardware testing. Blue Origin’ s BE-4 engine and its New Glenn rocket are currently expected to fly for the first time before 2020, with AR’s NGL tentatively planning for a 2021 inaugural flight, assuming the company chooses to continue pursuing its development.
SpaceX has not yet specified when BFR or BFS will first take flight. Raptor is likely to begin full-scale testing relatively soon, and Musk revealed that SpaceX was aiming to begin construction of the first BFR as early as Q2 of 2018. It’s quickly starting to look like the U.S. is about to enter a sort of modern commercial space race and regardless of the outcome, the next several months and years are bound to be tense and exciting for SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the established incumbents as they battle for both public and private contracts.
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
