News
SpaceX confirms plan to activate South Texas launch site in late 2018
Following our report that Elon Musk’s space company was progressing on the development of a new launch site in Texas, SpaceX’s Senior Communications Manager James Gleeson has confirmed with Teslarati that the company is, in fact, working towards the activation of its South Texas launch facilities in late 2018, possibly sooner.
“We are currently targeting late 2018 for the site in South Texas to be operational but we’re reviewing our progress and will turn the site online as soon as it’s ready.”
Combined with a comment made in early January by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, BFS development by all appearances is going quite smoothly. Still, it’s likely that the Boca Chica site’s late 2018 “operational” status refers mainly to an ability to support something less than orbital launches, perhaps suborbital testing of BFS. According to a source knowledgeable with SpaceX’s South Texas outlook, there are currently no plans to manufacture BFR in the region, although the company has enjoyed the warm welcomes it’s received from local leaders enthusiastic about the company’s local expansion.
-
- SpaceX already operates an extensive rocket testing facility in Central Texas, tests that previously included flights of a Falcon 9 reuse demonstrator. (SpaceX)
-
- The majority of testing done at McGregor is of individual Merlin engines, each of which is fired for around dozens of seconds to verify performance and quality. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s current Texas facilities feature a test stand for Raptor, the engine intended to power BFR and BFS to Mars. (SpaceX)
The question of where to test the first Big F____ Spaceship (BFS) prototype also appears to be undecided at the moment, and comments made by CEO Elon Musk immediately after Falcon Heavy’s inaugural launch further confirmed that a couple of different options are under consideration, one of which involves using Boca Chica as a testing facility for the Mars rocket. True orbital launch operations are thus highly unlikely to begin at Boca Chica any earlier than mid-to-late 2019, and that aspirational timeline is of course intimately dependent upon the relatively smooth development and testing of BFS, as well as the potential value SpaceX might see in a fully-private orbital launch complex compatible with their proven Falcon family of rockets. A site wholly dedicated to Starlink launches, for example, could rapidly speed up the internet satellite constellation’s deployment, the completion of which could be a massive source of income capable of funding the company’s interplanetary ambitions.
The boom of a giant crane (possibly meant for BFS) seen in late 2017, parked at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities. (Reddit /u/ ticklestuff)
While SpaceX’s communications policy reasonably avoids commenting on employee movement, the South Texas site’s late 2018 operational status would undeniably require a fair amount of work, likely on the order of the refurbishment and repair of the SLC-40 pad. This indirectly lends at least a sliver of credence to a recent claim from Space Florida, a state-run economic development agency focused on aerospace, that a portion of the workers involved in the refurbishment of LC-40 and LC-39A’s Falcon Heavy upgrades have begun “working on their Brownsville [TX] site.”
Dale Ketcham, Space Florida: people who worked on LC-39A and SLC-40 here for SpaceX now working on their Brownsville site. Georgia will be offering a spaceport site just as attractive to launch customers as Brownsville.
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) March 1, 2018
Indeed, local South Texas fans of SpaceX have done an outstanding job of tracking the progress made at the Boca Chica launch facility over the last several years, and activity at the site does appear to have exploded in recent months, relative to the several years of quiet landscaping that followed its 2014 announcement.
Most recently, the addition of a solar array installation, Tesla Powerpacks, and an 800-kilowatt generator gives the construction zone the ability to generate considerably more than 1MW of grid-independent power, likely more than enough to operate both a bevy of construction equipment and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon communications complex.
Solar installation at SpaceX’s facility in Boca Chica, Texas [Credit: Nomadd via NASASpaceFlight.com Forum]
Ultimately, it’s all but guaranteed that significant increases in construction and development activity (or the lack thereof) will be immediately noted and communicated by observant locals. If SpaceX hopes to make its South Texas site operational before the end of the year, major work can be expected to begin within a handful of months at most. In the meantime, activities in Los Angeles, CA, particularly the Port of San Pedro, will offer another source of data on BFS’ development progress. Now we wait…
Get real-time updates from our Space Team and follow:
- Teslarati – Instagram (live stories) – Twitter
- Tom Cross – Twitter
- Pauline Acalin – Twitter
- Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
