U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley (R-CA) has sent a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker over his recent claims about SpaceX. During Tuesday’s Transportation Committee hearing, Whitaker advanced several alleged safety concerns about SpaceX’s operations, all of which were strongly denied by the private space company.
During his testimony, the FAA Administrator alleged that SpaceX must operate at the highest level of safety, which includes having a safety management system program and a whistleblower program. He also alleged that SpaceX had launched without a permit last year in Cape Canaveral, FL and that the delay in Starship’s Flight 5 launch was due to SpaceX failing to provide an updated sonic boom analysis, among other safety concerns.
FAA Administrator Whitaker made several incorrect statements today regarding SpaceX. In fact, every statement he made was incorrect.
It is deeply concerning that the Administrator does not appear to have accurate information immediately available to him with respect to SpaceX… pic.twitter.com/OrtMUvnCNI— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 24, 2024
SpaceX strongly denied each of Whitaker’s claims. In a letter, Mat Dunn, senior director of global government affairs at SpaceX, stated that “every statement (the FAA Administrator) made was incorrect.” Dunn also argued that SpaceX is currently the “safest, most reliable launch provider in the world, and is absolutely committed to safety in all operations.”
Kiley’s recent letter to Whitaker carried some of the points from SpaceX’s rebuttal of the FAA Administrator’s claims. As per the Representative, Whitaker must provide answers to a number of questions surrounding his claims during the Transportation Committee hearing.
FAA Administrator Whitaker made a number of false statements in his testimony about @SpaceX. Either he doesn’t know what’s going on at his agency or he deliberately deceived Congress.
I’ve asked him which it is. Either possibility calls into doubt his fitness to lead the FAA. pic.twitter.com/lW2KcOnItT— Rep. Kevin Kiley (@RepKiley) September 25, 2024
Following is U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley’s letter to FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker.
September 25, 2024
Michael Whitaker
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Administrator Whitaker,
On September 24, 2024, you testified at a hearing of the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I asked you several questions during that hearing regarding the FAA’s decisions with respect to SpaceX launches. Your answers appear to be filled with inaccurate statements. Such falsehoods raise serious concerns about your fitness to lead the FAA. Please provide my office with responses in writing to the following questions –
- You claimed that SpaceX launched recent Falcon missions without a permit. SpaceX has said these claims are completely false, and that the FAA has not alleged previously that the company was not permitted or licensed to launch these missions. Can you share the evidence for your claim that SpaceX launched these missions without a permit?
- You claimed that SpaceX moved a fuel farm closer to the population without completing a risk analysis statement. SpaceX says that the new location was twice the distance from the nearest publicly accessible area, that the company provided the FAA with all the required analysis, and that the FAA ultimately approved the revised location. Please supply all correspondence between the FAA and SpaceX relative to the fuel farm.
- You claimed that SpaceX failed to provide an updated sonic boom analysis. SpaceX refutes this and says that the Fish and Wildlife Service had already reviewed Starship’s sonic booms and determined they had no environmental impact. While SpaceX has acknowledged it recently provided the FAA data showing a slightly larger sonic boom area than originally anticipated, the company maintains this results in no new environmental impact.
- What evidence does the FAA have of a new environmental impact?
- How long will it take the FAA to make this minor paperwork update?
- What evidence does the FAA have for your assertion that this is a safety related incident”?
- You claimed that SpaceX was in violation of Texas state law. What Texas laws did SpaceX violate?
- Does the FAA need to be reformed to keep up with innovation in the commercial space industry?
From the dawn of the space age, America has set the standard in exploration. Our nation’s spirit of innovation has propelled us to the moon and pushed the boundaries of what’s possible. If we want to keep that legacy alive, we must work with innovators, rather than slow them down. We cannot hinder private industry that is pushing the limits, with regulatory red tape and constant delays. The longer we stall, the more ground we lose. We must continue to empower our private space companies to innovate, build, and lead. This is the only way that we can ensure our national security, while also guaranteeing that America defines the next generation of space exploration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kiley
Member of Congress
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
