News
SpaceX’s Elon Musk: odds of Starship reaching orbit by 2020 are “rising rapidly”
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has suggested that the company’s newly revamped Starship and Super Heavy rocket (previously known as BFR) could perform its first integrated launches – placing Starship into orbit – as few as 12-24 months from today.
Musk indicated that the odds of Starship reaching orbit as early as 2020 are now as high as “60% [and] rising rapidly”, thanks in no small part to the flurry of radical changes the spacecraft and booster have both undergone over the course of 2018.
Probability at 60% & rising rapidly due to new architecture
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 27, 2018
Combined with a decision – made public at a September 2018 media event – to delay the debut of a vacuum-optimized upper stage Raptor (RVac) and stick with its mature sea level variant, Musk apparently is quite confident that these dramatic shifts in strategy will allow SpaceX to aggressively slash the development schedules of its next-gen launch vehicle. Intriguingly, Musk noted that while these “radical” design changes were almost entirely motivated by his desire to expedite the fully-reusable rocket’s operational debut, it apparently became clear that the cheaper, faster, and easier iteration could actually end up being (in Musk’s own words) “dramatically better” than its exotic carbon-composite progenitor.
Time. Although it also turned out to be dramatically better.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 27, 2018
“Delightfully counter-intuitive”
Let there be little doubt – I am still immensely skeptical of this radical redesign and the implausible logistics of conducting said redesign at the last second while somehow maintaining the test schedule, let alone expediting it by 6-9 months. Despite the fact that Musk does seem to have a compellingly rational answer to every question thus far asked, he was no less convincing in mid-2016 when he stated with contagious conviction that Tesla’s Fremont factory would be an almost 100%-automated “alien dreadnought” as early as 2018. There is, of course, nothing wrong per se with being wrong, although taking 24 months and several hundred million dollars to realize as much can be downright fatal or at least a major health risk for any given company that faces such a challenge, as was the case with Tesla.
Skepticism aside, there are equally many reasons to be optimistic about the future of SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy (BFR) program over the next several years. Not only do metal hot structures have a proven track record of success (admittedly in the 1960s and for suborbital conditions, but still), but the century and a half humans have been making and building with steel serves to aggressively reduce risk in BFR’s development, whereas a giant, highly-reusable spaceship and rocket built mainly out of carbon composites is about as exotic, challenging, and alien as one could muster. One step further, Musk appears to be dead-set on the trade that the benefits of moving from composite to stainless steel far, far outweigh the costs.
-
- BFS/Starship shows off some of its heat shield. SpaceX may be looking into an advanced NASA solution for BFR’s thermal protection system. (SpaceX)
-
- Starship is shown here reentering Mars’ atmosphere at high speeds (SpaceX)
-
- Starship – in its 2018 design iteration – seen landing on Mars atop pillars of Raptor flame. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX CEO Elon Musk visited the South Texas site where Starship’s first prototype is being built on December 23rd. (Elon Musk)
-
- Starship… or BFWTF? 🙂 (NASASpaceflight /u/bocachicagal)
Most notably, Musk’s implication that a steel alloy skin – albeit with regenerative (i.e. liquid) cooling – could genuinely stand in for SpaceX’s ablative PICA-X heat shield technology on Starship was the most unintuitive but logical shift yet. Although steel alloys may literally have densities that are significantly higher than carbon composites, composites simply cannot (at least in the current state of the art) withstand high temperatures like those that Starship would inevitably experience during orbital and interplanetary reentries. As a result, Starship would need an extremely advanced heat shield technology that is minimally ablative, extremely lightweight, robust, and shock-resistant, not to mention an additional layer capable of mounting it to Starship’s composite hull while also insulating the propellant tanks and structure from the extreme heat of reentry.
Leeward side needs nothing, windward side will be activity cooled with residual (cryo) liquid methane, so will appear liquid silver even on hot side
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 25, 2018
Steel, on the other hand, is one of the least thermally conductive metals available, while also featuring alloys with melting points that can approach and even surpass 1500 degrees C. With regenerative cooling, it’s entirely possible that a hot steel shield and fusion of propellant tanks and load-bearing structures could ultimately result in a spaceship far more reusable, reliable, and perhaps even performant that a spaceship relying on exotic heat shield materials and linerless carbon composite propellant tanks.
Perhaps BFR Block 2 or 3 will make room for dramatically improved composite formulations and production methods down the road, but advanced steel and other metal alloys appear to be the way forward for SpaceX for the time being. For now, we can sit, watch, and wait as something comes together at the company’s South Texas test and launch facilities.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
