News
SpaceX’s Starship rocket program just had one of its best nights yet
Before dawn on May 4th, SpaceX successfully fueled a full-scale Starship prototype and (partially) tested an installed Raptor engine for the first time ever – perhaps the Starship program’s best night yet.
While just a small test relative to what’s soon to come, the milestone is still an extremely significant one for SpaceX and its next-generation launch vehicle. Designed to launch atop the Super Heavy booster, both Starship and its booster are meant to be fully reusable, potentially making the launch system one of the cheapest in operation on Earth. Despite that unprecedented full reusability, they should still be able to place dozens (perhaps up to 100-150+) metric tons of payload into orbit in a single launch.
To get to that point, however, SpaceX must develop and demonstrate a cornucopia of technologies and approaches – most of which are unprecedented – at a scale unmatched by ever other launch vehicle in history, save two or three. It was perhaps the most fundamental of those steps that was on the table earlier this morning.
Perhaps the single most important and uncertain part of SpaceX’s ambitious Starship architecture, SpaceX’s May 4th wet dress rehearsal (WDR) was mainly a test of Starship’s overall structure and the manufacturing apparatus SpaceX has created to build it. Despite how exotic and challenging some of Starship’s goals may sound, SpaceX’s approach to production for its newest launch vehicle is arguably the single biggest risk for the program.
Notably, CEO Elon Musk says that the ultimate goal is to roll out a single finished Starship rocket every single week and at a cost of something like $5-10 million per vehicle. Including the Super Heavy booster, the production goals of which remain unknown, SpaceX effectively wants to mass-produce dozens of fully-reusable rockets – all larger (and potentially more capable) than NASA’s Saturn V Moon rocket – for anywhere from a tenth to a hundredth of the cost.
As if those goals weren’t ambitious enough, SpaceX intends to achieve them with perhaps the most spartan, minimalist factory ever attempted for orbital-class rockets. At the moment, all Starship hardware built by SpaceX to date has been manufactured in a series of tents, more recently graduating to a trio of warehouse-sized sprung structures. A large hangar – apparently dedicated to building pad infrastructure – is just shy of complete, while a separate windbreak structure and a vertical assembly building (VAB) are used to stack (assemble) full-scale Starship subsections built inside tents.
Unlike almost every other launch vehicle in history, Starship production – excluding its Raptor engines and certain other subassemblies and parts – is done in tents and is almost entirely divorced of the clean room operations rocket factories are famous for. Despite the extensive use of hand-welded seams and parts on SpaceX’s early Starship prototypes, the company has already proven that it’s well on its way to building Starships in just a week or two.
While it appears that SpaceX only performed a partial wet dress rehearsal with liquid methane and oxygen and completed a test of part of Starship SN4’s installed Raptor engine (known as the preburner), it means that a Starship has survived a truly launch vehicle-like procedure for the first time ever. In other words, Starship SN4’s May 4th success served as SpaceX’s most important verification yet that its exotic Starship manufacturing approach could be viable for building actual orbital-class rockets.
Up next, SpaceX will attempt to perform a full wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and a static fire test of Starship SN4 and its lone Raptor engine. That test attempt could come as soon as this evening.
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
