News
SpaceX’s first flight-proven Starship rolled back to factory for likely retirement
While SpaceX has spent the better part of three weeks inspecting the first flight-proven Starship to survive a high-altitude launch and landing, the company appears to have decided to retire the rocket instead of flying it again.
On May 25th, four days after Starship serial number 15 (SN15) was reinstalled on one of SpaceX’s two suborbital launch mounts, a crane was attached to its nose and a transporter staged beside it. One day later, the historic Starship prototype was lifted off of Mount B, installed on that transporter, and rolled away from the launch pad and back towards SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory.
The day after Starship SN15 was reinstalled on a launch mount, giving SpaceX unrestricted access to its aft, all three of the rocket’s flight-proven Raptor engines – the first of their kind to survive the flight profile intact – were removed. Given the significant value of tearing down and inspecting the first flight-proven high-altitude Raptors, that removal was likely guaranteed regardless of the future of SN15, though it certainly left the Starship at a crossroads.
Having already had its six used landing legs removed, Starship SN15 was left more or less declawed on the launch mount as fans watched with bated breath to see if new legs or engines would be installed. For better or worse, while CEO Elon Musk did indicate that SpaceX “might try to refly SN15 soon” less than two days after its historic landing, it quickly became clear that the company had decided against reuse.
To a degree, especially if SN15’s flight-proven Raptor engines were rendered unusable – as they appear to have been – by exposure to water immediately after touchdown, “reusing” the Starship would be more symbolic than anything. With a thorough inspection, it would be easy enough to determine that the Starship’s structures and mechanical/hydraulic systems would be up for a second launch, but the slow ~10 km (6.2 mi) flight profile ships SN8 through SN11 and SN15 completed was already only relevant for testing Starship’s exotic, unproven method of landing.
In that sense, another fully successful ~10-km launch and landing would only benefit Starship development insofar as it would increase confidence in the landing profile by proving that the first success wasn’t a fluke – however incredibly unlikely that might be. Of note, SpaceX also has not plans to recover the first space-proven Starship, instead (nominally) performing a soft-landing in the Pacific Ocean if the prototype makes it through its inaugural spaceflight without issue.
If that “Orbital Test Flight” is a perfect success, SpaceX will likely have enough confidence – and regulators enough data – to proceed to the first attempt to recover an orbital Starship on land. In the meantime, with orbital launch site buildup now moving at a breakneck pace and tens of millions of dollars of custom pad hardware, giant cranes, and months of work sitting a few hundred feet away from the landing pad, attempting to push the envelope with SN15 likely just isn’t worth the risk.
SN15 is also a historic piece of hardware after its successful landing and there are signs – namely the location SpaceX has moved the rocket to – that the Starship will be put on permanent display beside the factory that built it. There’s a limited possibility that Starship SN16 – all but finished – could be sent to the launch site instead of heading straight to the scrapyard, but any testing would necessarily delay orbital pad construction and any flight activity would likely have to expend SN16 in the ocean rather than risk a land landing.
Ultimately, it’s looking more and more likely that SpaceX would rather go all-in on Starship’s inaugural orbital launch attempt, even if that means little to no ground or flight test availability for a few months.
News
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm.
Swedish labor unions are considering whether to file a police report related to a newly opened Tesla Megapack Supercharger near Stockholm, citing questions about how electricity is supplied to the site. The matter has also been referred to Sweden’s energy regulator.
Tesla Megapack Supercharger
The Tesla Megapack Supercharger opened shortly before Christmas in Arlandastad, outside Stockholm. Unlike traditional charging stations, the site is powered by an on-site Megapack battery rather than a direct grid connection. Typical grid connections for Tesla charging sites in Sweden have seen challenges for nearly two years due to union blockades.
Swedish labor union IF Metall has submitted a report to the Energy Market Inspectorate, asking the authority to assess whether electricity supplied to the battery system meets regulatory requirements, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). The Tesla Megapack on the site is charged using electricity supplied by a local company, though the specific provider has not been publicly identified.
Peter Lydell, an ombudsman at IF Metall, issued a comment about the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. “The legislation states that only companies that engage in electricity trading may supply electricity to other parties. You may not supply electricity without a permit, then you are engaging in illegal electricity trading. That is why we have reported this… This is about a company that helps Tesla circumvent the conflict measures that exist. It is clear that it is troublesome and it can also have consequences,” Lydell said.
Police report under consideration
The Swedish Electricians’ Association has also examined the Tesla Megapack Supercharger and documented its power setup. As per materials submitted to the Energy Market Inspectorate, electrical cables were reportedly routed from a property located approximately 500 meters from the charging site.
Tomas Jansson, ombudsman and deputy head of negotiations at the Swedish Electricians’ Association, stated that the union was assessing whether to file a police report related to the Tesla Megapack Supercharger. He also confirmed that the electricians’ union was coordinating with IF Metall about the matter. “We have a close collaboration with IF Metall, and we are currently investigating this. We support IF Metall in their fight for fair conditions at Tesla,” Jansson said.
News
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45.”
Tesla’s Hardware 4.5 computer appears to have surfaced in newly delivered Model Y vehicles, prompting fresh speculation about an interim upgrade ahead of the company’s upcoming AI5 chip.
Owners taking delivery of recent Model Y builds have identified components labeled “AP45,” suggesting Tesla may have quietly started rolling out revised autonomy hardware.
Hardware 4.5 appears in new Model Y units
The potential Hardware 4.5 sighting was first reported by Model Y owner @Eric5un, who shared details of a Fremont-built 2026 Model Y AWD Premium delivered this January. As per the Model Y owner, the vehicle includes a new front camera housing and a 16-inch center display, along with an Autopilot computer labeled “AP45” and part number 2261336-02-A.
The Tesla owner later explained that he confirmed the part number by briefly pulling down the upper carpet liner below the Model Y’s glovebox. Other owners soon reported similar findings. One Model Y Performance owner noted that their December build also appeared to include Hardware 4.5, while another owner of an Austin-built Model Y Performance reported spotting the same “AP45” hardware.
These sightings suggest that Tesla may already be installing revised FSD computers in its new Model Y batches, despite the company not yet making any formal announcements about Hardware 4.5.
What Hardware 4.5 could represent
Clues about Hardware 4.5 have surfaced previously in Tesla’s Electronic Parts Catalog. As reported by NotATeslaApp, the catalog has listed a component described as “CAR COMPUTER – LEFT HAND DRIVE – PROVISIONED – HARDWARE 4.5.” The component, which features the part number 2261336-S2-A, is priced at $2,300.00.
Longtime Tesla hacker @greentheonly has noted that Tesla software has contained references to a possible three-SoC architecture for some time. Previous generations of Tesla’s FSD computer, including Hardware 3 and Hardware 4, use a dual-SoC design for redundancy. A three-SoC layout could allow for higher inference throughput and improved fault tolerance.
Such an architecture could also serve as a bridge to AI5, Tesla’s next-generation autonomy chip expected to enter production later in 2026. As Tesla’s neural networks grow larger and more computationally demanding, Hardware 4.5 may provide additional headroom for vehicles built before AI5 becomes widely available.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s Grokipedia is getting cited by OpenAI’s ChatGPT
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia.
Some responses generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT have recently referenced information from Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by rival xAI, which was founded by Elon Musk. The citations appeared across a limited set of queries.
Reports about the matter were initially reported by The Guardian.
Grokipedia references in ChatGPT
Grokipedia launched in October as part of xAI’s effort to build an alternative to Wikipedia, which has become less centrist over the years. Unlike Wikipedia, which is moderated and edited by humans, Grokipedia is purely AI-powered, allowing it to approach topics with as little bias as possible, at least in theory. This model has also allowed Grokipedia to grow its article base quickly, with recent reports indicating that it has created over 6 million articles, more than 80% of English Wikipedia.
The Guardian reported that ChatGPT cited Grokipedia nine times across responses to more than a dozen user questions during its tests. As per the publication, the Grokipedia citations did not appear when ChatGPT was asked about high-profile or widely documented topics. Instead, Grokipedia was referenced in responses to more obscure historical or biographical claims. The pattern suggested selective use rather than broad reliance on the source, at least for now.
Broader Grokipedia use
The Guardian also noted that Grokipedia citations were not exclusive to ChatGPT. Anthropic’s AI assistant Claude reportedly showed similar references to Grokipedia in some responses, highlighting a broader issue around how large language models identify and weigh publicly available information.
In a statement to The Guardian, an OpenAI spokesperson stated that ChatGPT “aims to draw from a broad range of publicly available sources and viewpoints.” “We apply safety filters to reduce the risk of surfacing links associated with high-severity harms, and ChatGPT clearly shows which sources informed a response through citations,” the spokesperson stated.
Anthropic, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. As for xAI, the artificial intelligence startup simply responded with a short comment that stated, “Legacy media lies.”
Swedish unions consider police report over Tesla Megapack Supercharger
Tesla HW4.5 spotted in new Model Y, triggers speculation
