News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to present first Starship update since 2019 [webcast]
Barring surprises, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk remains on track to present the first major update on Starship’s development since September 2019 – almost two and a half years ago.
While it’s no longer clear that SpaceX will be able to stack Starship on top of Super Heavy in time for the fully-stacked rocket to serve as an imposing backdrop for the media event, Musk seemingly remains on track to update the world on the status of Starship development as early as 8pm CT (6pm PT, 9pm ET) on Thursday, February 10th (02:00 UTC 11 Feb). Assuming the event is similar to the SpaceX CEO’s first four major Starship presentations, it will be broadcast live to the world on the company’s YouTube channel.
Musk first revealed SpaceX’s detailed plans for a massive, fully-reusable Mars rocket in September 2016. At that point, the rocket – known as the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) – was to be 12 meters (39 ft) in diameter, 122 meters (400 ft) tall, and made almost entirely out of carbon-fiber composites. In theory, it would have been able to launch up to 300 tons (660,000 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO) – twice the payload of Saturn V, the next most capable rocket.
In 2017, SpaceX slightly pared back its ambition with a vehicle known as BFR, measuring 9m wide and 106m tall with about a third fewer Raptor engines and estimated performance of ~130 tons (285,000 lb) to LEO. In 2018, on top of announcing Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa’s circumlunar DearMoon mission and BFR’s first real launch contract, SpaceX updated BFR’s design, stretching the booster 12 meters for a total height of 118m (390 ft) and hedging its performance figures with an estimate of 100 tons to LEO in a fully-reusable configuration.
Around the same time as Musk’s 2018 BFR presentation, though, the SpaceX CEO made the decision to entirely scrap the rocket’s composites-heavy design, renaming the rocket ‘Starship’ and replacing the material with stainless steel – effectively reverting structures development to the drawing board. The principles of the rocket, its general shape and layout, and the Raptor engine powering it remained the same. Thanks to steel’s extreme affordability relative to cutting-edge composites, SpaceX was able to make rapid progress and ultimately flew Starhopper – a steel water-tower-esque rocket powered by Raptor – less than a year later in July and August 2019.
Less than a year after Starhopper’s 150m (~500 ft) hop, SpaceX successfully hopped a far more mature Starship prototype known as SN5, which relied on far thinner steel and effectively amounted to a full prototype of the tank section of an orbital-class ship. Just a month later, in September 2020, SpaceX repeated the feat with an entirely different Starship prototype, demonstrating repeatability both in production and flight. Three months later, Starship SN8 – featuring flaps, a nosecone, header tanks, and two more Raptor engines – nearly aced its launch debut. In May 2021, after three more failed test flights, Starship SN15 stuck the landing and survived a 10 km launch, more or less fully demonstrating the rocket’s exotic skydiver-style descent and last-second flip for a vertical landing.
Visible progress has slowed and flight testing has halted since SpaceX began pushing for the first orbital Starship test flight in mid-2021. The company decided against reusing Starship SN15 and also chose not to attempt to replicate the ship’s successful landing with Starship SN16, which was ready for testing a matter of days after. Instead, SpaceX has focused on constructing the orbital launch site and slowly finished Starship S20 and Super Heavy B4 – a pair once expected to support the first orbital test flight. While slow compared to all previous Starship prototypes, Ship 20 has nonetheless made excellent progress and is effectively fully ready for a serious flight test. Booster 4, on the other hand, has barely completed cryogenic proof testing and has yet to perform even a partial wet dress rehearsal (with live propellant) or attempt a single static fire test in last five months.
In short, the status of Starship development – and, especially, Booster 4, Ship 20, and the first orbital test flight – has gotten quite a bit murkier over the last several months. February 9th and 10th marked a welcome change of pace, with SpaceX sailing through the very first attempt at stacking Starship hardware with Starbase’s ‘orbital integration tower’ (launch tower) and a trio of giant, robotic arms. Just a handful of hours after the first ‘arm lift’ began, Starship S20 was safely stacked atop Super Heavy Booster 4, assembling the largest rocket in the world for the second time this year.
With any luck, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s first presentation in two and a half years – scheduled no earlier than 8pm CST (02:00 UTC) – will shed further light on the company’s progress towards orbital test flights.
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
