News
SpaceX prepares to break ground on Starship launch facilities at Pad 39A
As of September 14th, SpaceX is nearly ready to break ground on what will likely be the first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy launch pad, coming in the form of an addition to the company’s NASA-leased LC-39A pad at Kennedy Space Center.
Based on environmental assessment documents published in August 2019, the modifications SpaceX plans to make to Pad 39A are surprisingly minor and could arguably take just a handful of months from start to finish. Once complete, SpaceX will possess dedicated Starship launch facilities in both Florida and Texas, although there is a strong chance that Pad 39A will be ready to support orbital launch attempts well before SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch site is certified.
Per NASASpaceflight.com’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) sources, the new activity and equipment at Pad 39A was confirmed to be the start of Starship-related modifications. However, the basic location of the new activity supports the theory that the work is Starship-related irrespective of any sourced confirmation.
Maps published in an August 2019 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) show that SpaceX is currently staging construction materials and equipment in the same quadrant that a majority of Starship’s Pad 39A ground systems will eventually be located. According to the draft EA, SpaceX will likely continue to use its existing 39A hangar, additionally supported by a comment from CEO Elon Musk indicating that Starship and Super Heavy will be more or less structurally stable in horizontal positions. The 39A hangar is large enough to house Starships and Super Heavy boosters, although their presence would almost certainly impact Falcon 9/Heavy operations
Still, Starship and Super Heavy will be vertically integrated into a single ‘stack’ prior to launch. According to SpaceX, a large, mobile crane will be used temporarily and will eventually be replaced with a permanent, fixed-structure crane at some point in the future. Aside from a propellant farm and associated plumbing for Starship’s liquid methane fuel supply, the EA shows plans for new water percolation and retention ponds, as well as a new landing zone located just a few hundred feet away from the planned launch mount.
Until the FAA performs an environmental assessment of rocket landings at Pad 39A, SpaceX will land Starships at its established LZ-1/2 landing zones, while Super Heavy will be exclusively recovered via drone ship until SpaceX has permission to literally perform return to launch site (RTLS) landings.
As with most SpaceX projects, Pad 39A’s Starship-related development is effectively structured in phases. The first phase focuses primarily on suborbital Starship flight tests and will require a relatively spartan launch mount/stand and water-cooled thrust diverter. SpaceX is in the middle of preparing to build the concrete foundation that said Starship launch mount and deluge system will be installed on. Once SpaceX is ready for orbital Starship launch attempts (and thus Super Heavy booster involvement), the company will either stretch the existing launch mount a dozen or so meters taller or build a new structure tall enough to prevent Super Heavy from destroying the concrete foundation.
That latter task will be quite the challenge, given that a full-up Super Heavy booster at full thrust could produce almost twice as much thrust as NASA’s Saturn V rocket, the massive launch vehicle Pad 39A was originally built to support. According to Elon Musk, Starship’s first orbital launch attempt(s) could begin as early as November or December 2019, although sometime in Q1 or Q2 2020 is a far safer bet. Either way, it’s possible that SpaceX will transport Starship Mk2 to Pad 39A as early as this month (September 2019) and the first launch of a Starship prototype (likely Mk1) is scheduled as early as October 13th. Starship Mk2 could be ready for its own flight debut soon after.
Stay tuned as SpaceX continues to fire on all cylinders in pursuit of its fully-reusable, next-generation launch vehicle.
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
