News
SpaceX posts first BFR-dedicated job posting – wanna build a Mars rocket?
SpaceX has published the first job posting specifically dedicated to BFR, the company’s ambitious fully-reusable Mars rocket and multipurpose launch vehicle. Currently targeting the first half of 2019 for initial hop tests with a prototype spaceship (upper stage) and 2020 for the first full-up orbital tests of the booster and ship. Job postings specific to BFR signify the beginning of serious R&D expansion and acceleration.
Since its announcement in September 2017, SpaceX has made slow but steady (visible) progress on its path to integrated BFR prototype production, including the construction of a giant temporary tent, the successful lease of a large plot of land intended to support the first dedicated BFR factory at Port of Los Angeles, and accepted shipments of massive tooling that will be used to construct the huge rocket’s first carbon composite propellant tanks.
-
- Lots of cars at the BFR tent. This also provides a sense of scale for the tent’s absolutely massive access flaps. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s first major BFR and BFS fabrication tooling, likely being stored temporarily in a tent at Port of San Pedro. Note the tent framework at the top. (Elon Musk)
-
- Images corroborated the location of the giant mandrel tool inside the Port of San Pedro tent, April 2018. (Pauline Acalin)
First revealed in 2016 in the form of the 33% larger Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), CEO Elon Musk provided a second update in 2017 that showed an optimized, smaller rocket with all the same goals, known as BFR (Big F- Rocket). The rocket’s main propulsion, a methane and liquid oxygen-fueled engine known as Raptor, also saw its 2016 targets lowered partially, dropping its targeted maximum thrust to about double (from 3000 kN to 1700 kN) the current Merlin 1D engines powering the Falcon family.
Tellingly, the job posted on Monday, June 11, sounds very similar to those posted for equivalent engineering positions with Falcon 9 and Dragon. Titled “BFR Build Engineer”, the listing describes many of the same skills and tasks prospective employees would expect to find if hired, with most focused on SpaceX’s culture of constant improvement. The same is expected from build engineers and engineers, in general, focused on SpaceX’s current operational launch vehicles and spacecraft, strongly suggesting that the BFR effort is taking its very first steps from an experimental research program to something more akin to an operational branch of the launch company.
What is definitely new is the specific focus on expertise with advanced forms of welding, particularly with joining distinct composite and metal components, as will be required throughout BFR.
-
- SpaceX’s subscale Raptor engine has completed more than 1200 seconds of testing in less than two years. (SpaceX)
-
- Shown here is a prototype of the original 12m diameter ITS tankage. BFR’s tanks will be 25% narrower, and thus easier to manufacture. (SpaceX)
Read the best parts of the job listing below:
“The BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) is a massive next generation launch vehicle and spacecraft designed to carry [hu]mankind to the moon, Mars, and beyond. Also capable of flying humans from Los Angeles to New York in 25 minutes, the BFR will eventually replace the current Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon programs as the primary vehicle for all SpaceX missions.”
“The goal of this team is to investigate, test, and develop new hardware, software, and automation efforts capable of supporting advanced metallic and composite joining methods for the BFR. Focusing on friction stir welding, EB [electron-beam] welding, and composite tank lamination, the BFR Build Engineer is responsible for delivering results on critical projects with a highly demanding and fast-paced schedule”
- Drive the technology development for manufacturing cryogenic composite tanks through research, mechanical/destructive testing and sub-scale manufacturing
- Work closely with vehicle analysts and manufacturing team to ensure solutions meet the requirements for vehicle design as well as the manufacturing processes
- Partner with engineering & production teams to generate ideas, designs, and improvements for current and next-generation vehicles
- Strong background in composite structures with knowledge of automated fiber placement, autoclaves and composite design criteria
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
