News
SpaceX begins launch pad upgrades for Starship flight tests in Texas and Florida
Beneath the buzz of Starship Mk1’s glamorous wing installation, SpaceX has begun installing new launch pad hardware meant to support the spacecraft’s first flights, several components of which have been in Boca Chica for more than a year.
Simultaneously, SpaceX broke ground on a complimentary Starship launch facility on September 21st, an add-on to the existing LC-39A pad in Cape Canaveral, Florida and the probable site of Starship’s first Super Heavy-supported orbital launch attempts.
SpaceX’s Starship-related progress at Pad 39A was noted and photographed by Julia Bergeron on September 21st during one of the hour-long bus tours offered by Kennedy Space Center’s Visitor Complex (KSCVC). SpaceX has been staging hardware at the proposed location of its Pad 39A Starship launch mount over the last ten or so days and finally broke ground (i.e. actually moved earth) on Saturday, a likely indicator that the company was waiting on an official go-ahead or construction permit.
The work at 39A could take anywhere from a few dozen weeks to 6-12 months depending on how substantial the changes are and how permanent SpaceX wants the facilities to be. For the time being, SpaceX applications show a fairly minimal series of modifications, including a concrete pad, a steel launch mount and water-cooled rocket exhaust diverter, a methane farm and associated plumbing, extensions of existing oxygen/nitrogen/helium ground systems, and a few stormwater management-related items.
At the same time, SpaceX is planning to transport its Starship Mk2 prototype – currently staged at a Cocoa, FL assembly facility – several dozen miles to Pad 39A as early as this month, although October is looking more likely. It appears that SpaceX has diverted a large portion of its Florida Starship workforce to Texas in an attempt to expedite Starship Mk1 integration, but SpaceX Cocoa has already fabricated nearly two-dozen steel rings and is likely far ahead of Boca Chica on the road to the first Super Heavy prototype. Barring calamity, Starship Mk1 is nevertheless all but guaranteed to beat Mk2 to flight.
Entering ‘Phase 2’
Back in Boca Chica, Texas, SpaceX ground engineers and technicians are working to upgrade the site’s existing launch facilities, previously used to support an extremely fast-paced campaign of Starhopper wet rehearsals, Raptor static fires, and hops. Starhopper completed its second and final flight on August 27th and the low-fidelity prototype will be retired either as a monument or a static Raptor test stand. Although the existing pad hardware was more than enough for Starhopper, Starship is much larger and has new needs that demand a few upgrades.
Along the lines of its proposed Phase 2 modifications, partially pictured above, SpaceX delivered two massive, new propellant tanks (one for methane, one for oxygen) on September 19th and September 22nd. Somewhat fittingly, those tanks marked the first major rocket-related SpaceX movement in Boca Chica after a long period of inactivity, and their deliveries in July and October 2018 rekindled the excitement surrounding the company’s South Texas launch site.
It remains to be seen whether SpaceX will revamp its current pad with a full concrete foundation and the nature of the Phase 2 pad’s launch mount and water deluge is also unclear. However, the upgrades do appear to be minimal and should take no more than a few weeks to a few months. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wants Starship Mk1 ready for its first flight tests as early as October 2019 and the company has filed for FCC communications permits that indicate a no-earlier-than (NET) date of October 13th.
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
