News
SpaceX’s next big BFR spaceship part finished in Port of LA tent facility
The first 9-meter (29.5-foot) diameter composite propellant tank dome for SpaceX’s full-scale BFR spaceship prototype has been spotted more or less complete at the company’s temporary Port of Los Angeles facility, unambiguous evidence that SpaceX is continuing to rapidly fabricate major components of its next-generation rocket.
Speaking at a dedicated BFR update event in mid-September, CEO Elon Musk foreshadowed as much, and recent updates have reiterated just how committed SpaceX is to BFR and just how keen the company is to waste no time at all.
“We’ve built the first cylinder section…and we’ll be building the domes and the engine section soon.” – SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, September 2018
During that September 17th presentation, Musk did not parse his words despite a self-admitted tendency to look at SpaceX’s development program timelines (Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, BFR) through rose-tinted glasses. Just two months after he uttered the quote above, SpaceX has visibly either finished or nearly finished a 9-meter diameter BFR spaceship (BFS) tank dome.
Due to SpaceX’s opaque treatment of development programs (both literally for the tent and figuratively for official updates), it’s possible that this may even the second dome completed so far. Either way, it can be extrapolated – assuming that the layout of BFR 2017 is generally representative of BFR 2018 – that the first spaceship prototype will require two or three roughly identical tank domes. If the common-dome tank layout is basically the same (disclaimer: it might be quite different), then SpaceX may end up mounting BFS’ 7 Raptor engines almost directly to the rear of the bottom tank dome, requiring either significant structural reinforcement or a second uniquely-engineer and optimized dome.
-
- A tall platform was moved inside the tent around November 10th, likely to support the integration of the tank dome and barrel section. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- The dome was spied inside the tent on November 12. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- The dome (left) and barrel section (right) can now be integrated. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- BFR 2017’s spaceship engine section. (SpaceX)
-
- An overview of BFS (circa 2017). (SpaceX)O
Judging from SpaceX’s and Musk’s desire to make reusable rockets as reliable as (if not even more reliable than) commercial airliners, the safest form of mass-transit humans have created, it seems more likely than not that Raptor and BFR will continue SpaceX’s practice of quite literally surrounding each engine with thrust-transmitting structures that simultaneously act as armored shields. In the event that a Merlin engine fails on Falcon 9 or Heavy, each booster’s octaweb contains nine separate armored chambers that exist to isolate each engine in the event of a catastrophic failure. In fact, a Merlin failure – the only such in-flight failure known – during SpaceX’s CRS-1 Dragon launch in 2012 demonstrated the efficacy of this design, preventing the failure of just one of nine engines from causing total mission failure.
Rise of the ‘hexaweb’?
To replicate that design strategy on BFR (both booster and spaceship) would be an act of simple pragmatism – it’s always preferable to design for survivability and reliability than to couch launch and mission success primarily on the reliability of individual components. Because SpaceX chose not to share similarly detailed cutaways of BFR’s updated 2018 design, it’s unclear if the spaceship’s engine section (“hexaweb”, to borrow from “octaweb”) has changed dramatically.
Given the unexpected decision to move entirely away from a version of Raptor specifically optimized for vacuum operation for BFR’s first iteration, as well as the new presence of ~90 cubic meters of storage bins around the circumference of the spaceship’s aft, it’s possible that SpaceX will opt for a design more reminiscent of the Falcon family’s octaweb.
-
- The rear of SpaceX’s updated BFS.
-
- A better view. (SpaceX)
-
- A September 2018 render of Starship (then BFS) shows one of the vehicle’s two hinged wings/fins/legs. (SpaceX)
-
- A gif of Raptor throttling over the course of a 90+ second static-fire test in McGregor, Texas. (SpaceX)
Regardless, the appearance of a completed BFS tank dome is a major development on the vehicle’s path to integrated testing and paves the way for the fabrication of additional tank domes, barrel sections, engine sections, and more. Particularly obvious and noteworthy will be the fabrication of the prototype spaceship’s pointed cone-shaped nose section, its large tripod fins/wings/legs, and its two forward canard wings.
With all three fins/wings installed, BFS – in its current iteration – would have an unbelievable circumference of ~67 meters (220 feet) and a ‘finspan’ of perhaps 21 meters (~70 feet) tip to tip. BFS is going to be a very hard spaceship to hide.
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
