News
Starhopper update: SpaceX’s ungainly Starship testbed survives night of fireballs, Raptor testing
SpaceX’s Starhopper appears to have come out the other end of an eventful night of fires, fireballs, and Raptor testing completely unscathed, although – as with all things rocketry – there is vastly more than meets the eye.
However, signs point towards Starhopper being almost entirely unharmed by its brief voyage inside a fireball – even if Boca Chica’s fire suppression system got a thorough workout and many a SpaceX onlooker likely suffered a partial heart attack. For the time being, it’s safe to assume that Starhopper’s planned flight activities have been indefinitely delayed as SpaceX technicians analyze the vehicle and engineers work to mitigate or completely prevent major fires from recurring.
According to NASASpaceflight.com’s well-informed sources, despite the spectacular fireworks that followed Raptor’s own impressive display, the engine’s static fire test was a full success – at least in terms of data produced by the engine. The large fireball was attributed to the ignition of a large methane vent that followed soon after Raptor’s shutdown.
For now, this means that Starhopper’s untethered flight test and hover test debut should not be expected to occur for several days, even in the event that the rocket, pad, and Raptor engine all made it through their July 16th ordeal completely undamaged. If there is zero damage, this accident will serve as an unfortunate but useful demonstration of a true stainless steel rocket’s theoretically exceptional sturdiness and heat resistance.
Despite suffering what looked like a serious fireball-related anomaly, #Starhopper appears to have been refueled and is visibly venting while the flare stack burns off excess methane. Very good sign that the issue looked worse than it is. Via @labpadrehttps://t.co/sOHShoRByb pic.twitter.com/cs6FSMcZ0T— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 17, 2019
It may seem more than a little ironic, but it’s likely less than a coincidence. If it comes to fruition as a truly functional, orbit-capable steel rocket, spaceship, and upper stage, Starship/Super Heavy will exist in their shiny, steel forms almost entirely because of the unintuitive tradeoffs that could theoretically make heat-resistant-but-dense steel more efficient than a ship built out of ultra-light carbon composites. If Starhopper’s newly demonstrated resilience is anything to go by, a very happy side-effect of that efficient, heat-resistant steel could be an almost unprecedented resilience in the face of serious fires, fireballs, and other fire-related anomalies.
For almost any other rocket, exposure – at least outside of the engine section – to large fireballs and quite literally having parts burning while motionless on the ground are deeply, deeply worrisome things and risk a major vehicle malfunction – potentially up to and including a catastrophic failure (i.e. explosion). ULA’s Delta IV rocket family is famous for self-immolating during ignition and liftoff, a minimal concern to the rockets’ thin, aluminum tankage thanks to several inches of thick, fire-retardant foam insulation.
For a rocket like Falcon 9, almost entirely (by surface area) composed of thin, aluminum propellant tanks and carbon composite structures, there is a constant struggle to balance the vehicle’s extreme performance with the low melting point of its primary structures (~720 degrees C). The 301-series stainless steel Starhopper and Starship(s) are built out of has a melting point of ~1400 degrees C, nearly double aluminum-lithium alloys.
In short, while it boggles the mind and is decidedly unintuitive to anyone who watched July 16th’s live coverage of the static fire, it’s actually not a huge surprise that Starhopper has suffered serious fire-related anomalies with essentially zero visible damage. In fact, it’s almost impossible to tell that anything at all happened, let alone discerning some subtle sign(s) of damage incurred by fires. It may sound ironic to say so, but rockets and fire just do not tend to like each other much at all.
Time will tell if Starhopper and Raptor are in as good a condition as they appear to be.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
