News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk promises long-awaited Starship update next week
While running behind schedule in classic fashion, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he’ll present the first big Starship program update in two and a half years on Thursday, February 10th.
Additionally, as an apparent centerpiece for the event and update, Musk says that SpaceX will perform the second-ever “full stack” fit test with a Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster.
Starship S20 and Super Heavy booster B4 were stacked for the first time in early August 2021, when both stages were still weeks or even months away from some degree of completion. Only months later did Starship S20 kick off a multi-month period of qualification tests, eventually becoming the first Starship prototype to successfully test a full six Raptor engines at once. Super Heavy B4, on the other hand, had an even more painful time for unknown reasons and only graduated to basic cryogenic proof testing in mid-December – more than four months later.
While the booster has had a full 29 Raptor 1 engines installed for months, the booster has yet to perform or attempt a single static fire of any number of those engines and hasn’t even managed a basic wet dress rehearsal with real liquid oxygen and methane propellant. Eventually, SpaceX did perform a handful of Booster 4 Raptor ignition tests, but those were almost more of a test of the launch pad than Super Heavy itself. The slow and minimal progress SpaceX has made testing Super Heavy B4 may actually be because of issues with orbital launch pad’s tank farm design. To this day, while the oxygen and nitrogen half of the farm are already storing thousands of tons of propellant and coolant, the fuel side of the same farm has yet to be filled with any methane. That makes thoroughly testing a Super Heavy booster much harder, though there are some obvious workarounds SpaceX could have made if it had really wanted to start proof testing Booster 4 as soon as possible.
In fact, it’s no longer clear if Ship 20 and Booster 4 will actually get to fulfill their original goal of supporting Starship’s first orbital (velocity) test flight. Nonetheless, they are still two giant, nearly completed stages that together form a full Starship ‘stack.’
Heading into 2022, SpaceX appears to be more focused on testing a somewhat extraneous part of the first orbital Starship launch site – “chopstick” arms installed on the launch tower. SpaceX’s current Starship ‘launch tower’ design centers around the need for three giant swinging arms – one to fuel and power Starship and the other two to lift, stack, and – maybe one day – catch Super Heavy boosters and ships. Had SpaceX stayed true to the original Starship/BFR/ITS design, the booster would have been fueled through the launch mount and Starship would have been fueled through a connection with the booster, significantly simplifying the tower.
In theory, replacing that design with a complex, building-sized umbilical arm might ultimately improve Starship’s nominal payload to orbit by a few percent. Additionally, using the even more complex “chopsticks” – a pair of giant arms – to lift and stack Super Heavy and Starship may actually be a smart design, as it could theoretically free SpaceX from the painful operational constraints imposed by large cranes.
By all appearances, that’s exactly what SpaceX plans to test next week. Starship S20 has already been moved adjacent to the launch tower and Super Heavy B4 has been attached to a crane (somewhat ironically) in preparation for its own move to the tower. For the first time, SpaceX might use the tower arms to lift Super Heavy onto the orbital launch mount, stabilize the booster, and then lift and stack Starship on top of it – all without a crane, in theory. Of course, insofar as SpaceX performed the first full-stack fit test with a crane, the tower’s lift/catch arms only really become irreplaceable once waiting a few days for safe lift conditions becomes a bottleneck for Starship launch operations.
Nonetheless, a successful stacking operation with those arms would be an impressive technical feat and demonstrate one of the things needed for all-weather Starship launch operations, even if it won’t leave SpaceX any closer to orbital test flights than it was before.
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
