News
SpaceX’s first Starship booster a step closer as custom parts arrive
While SpaceX remains focused on Starship flight testing as the dust settles from SN8’s launch debut, the company continues to make slow but steady progress building the first Super Heavy booster prototype.
For the most part, SpaceX has learned from trial and error and developed a decent stainless steel rocket manufacturing process by building a dozen Starship prototypes over the last ~12 months, ranging from a lone nosecone tip to stout test tanks and Starship SN8, which launched to 12.5 km (~7.8 mi) earlier this month. Practically identical below the nose, Super Heavy directly benefits from that maturity and is more or less an extended Starship tank section with more engines and bigger legs.
In many ways, Super Heavy can be much simpler than Starship, as a suborbital booster has no need for header tanks, flaps, or a nosecone, and can be much stronger and heavier in all aspects. However, carrying three or more times as propellant as Starship (and carrying Starship itself), Super Heavy also needs to be stronger. All those changes – requiring new design work and new fabrication – take time. In a great sign that most of that work is complete, some of that custom hardware needed to strengthen and power Super Heavy has begun to arrive over the last several weeks.
SpaceX began stacking the first Super Heavy booster (BN1) on November 8th and appears to have more or less paused integration operations after joining eight rings. Production continued apace, however, and no less than five ring sections destined for Super Heavy appeared over the next several weeks. Why assembly slowed down is unclear but it’s reasonable to assume that SpaceX was trying to keep its focus primarily on Starship SN8’s launch debut and the preparation of several other full-scale ships, where early work on Super Heavy could ultimately be for naught if Starship flight tests uncover major design flaws.
Regardless of the reason, BN1 remains eight rings (14.5m/48ft) tall as of December 14th, representing one-fifth of Super Heavy’s full 70-meter (~230 ft) height.
On December 17th, one of the parts unique to Super Heavy unexpectedly appeared in SpaceX’s South Texas shipyard, labeled “B1 FWD PIPE DOME”. The dome was quickly sleeved with a stack of three steel rings with labels confirming that the assembly was Super Heavy BN1’s common tank dome – “common” because it’s shared by both booster propellant tanks. The new dome is unique to all previous Starship domes, featuring a smaller, more reinforced cutout – likely because Super Heavy doesn’t need header tanks.
It also appears to borrow from Starship’s forward dome design, using the same rougher steel normally used to cap off Starship methane tanks.
Unlike Starship common domes, which place a spherical methane header tank at the bottom, Super Heavy’s common dome will have a transfer tube welded directly to its nozzle-like opening. As it turns out, what could be the first Super Heavy methane transfer tube was delivered to Boca Chica late last month.
Unlike Starship transfer tubes, the new plumbing appeared to have a much wider diameter and was delivered in four sections, meshing well with the fact that Super Heavy tanks are roughly twice as tall as Starship’s. Able to support as many as 28 Raptors compared to Starship’s 6, Super Heavy transfer tubes will also need to pump more than five times as much methane per second at full thrust, which could explain the larger diameter.
Finally and perhaps most significantly, aerial photos from RGV Photography appeared to capture the first glimpse of what might be the hardest custom part required by Super Heavy – a thrust structure designed to support up to 28 Raptor engines. On December 10th, casually sitting between Starship Mk1’s remains (on the white concrete mount) and a tent, a flat ring with clear eightfold symmetry and a donut-like cutout large enough to fit a Starship thrust puck with room to spare was easily visible.
The hexagonal symmetry was the main giveaway, matching comments from CEO Elon Musk that Super Heavy’s thrust structure will feature a central ring of eight engines surrounded by an outer ring of up to 20 more Raptors. Assuming the first Super Heavy booster only flies with a few Raptor engines, that sole eight-engine ‘puck’ may be all that SpaceX needs to complete BN1.
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
