News
SpaceX’s first Starship test flight imminent as rocket nosecone nears completion
Elon Musk has posted a new glimpse inside SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory, revealing a nearly-completed rocket nosecone and indicating that the first upgraded Starship prototype’s flight debut is imminent.
SpaceX teams have been working around the clock for a little over a month to build the first full-scale, flightworthy Starship prototype, a process that only began after two ‘test tanks’ were fabricated, assembled, and pressurized until they burst on January 10th and 28th. Built with improved tools and methods, those test results – particularly from the second test tank – allowed SpaceX to empirically confirm that its current infrastructure and techniques are ready to manufacture orbital-class (and even human-rated) Starships right now.
And so work on the first truly flightworthy Starship prototype – known as SN01 (serial number 01) – thus began in earnest around mid-January, perhaps less than a month ago. Over the course of that month, SpaceX’s South Texas team has made spectacular progress. Starship SN01’s business half – comprised of a Raptor engine section, a liquid oxygen tank, a methane tank, and all associated tank domes and plumbing – is likely just a single big stacking and welding event away from being structurally complete. The upper section of the prototype – Starship’s curved nose and a few less-critical steel rings – has, however, been a bit more elusive.
Aside from a few partial glimpses earlier this month, that nose appeared for the first time two or so weeks on a local resident’s livestream earlier today – just a few hours before Musk offered an even better view inside the same tent it was spotted in. Situated in the second large sprung structure erected at SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas facilities, Musk’s video revealed that that tent – really only completed less than two weeks ago – is already full of Starship production hardware.
Without exaggerating, it’s safe to say that SpaceX has effectively gone from a handful of parts worth of Texas rocket production to a multi-vehicle, Starship production line concurrently manufacturing multiple vehicles in about eight weeks. While it would be theoretically easy for critics and a more general audience to see little more than some cheap stainless steel parts in a few hastily-constructed temporary tents, the reality is that SpaceX has already proven – at a minimum – that a steel Starship built with the exact same tools, facilities, and methods will likely be capable of spaceflight.
SpaceX’s January 2020 Starship test tank program proved as much, demonstrating that thin steel tanks built in tents can serve as orbital-class pressure vessels and survive at internal pressures greater as high as 8.5 bar (125 psi) while filled with cryogenic (extremely cold) liquid. Meanwhile, Tesla’s Fremont factory General Assembly line 4 (GA4) – having continuously churned out high-quality Model 3s for more than a year – has proven that sprung structures can make for fast, cheap, and more or less permanent factory solutions. Prospective SpaceX competitor Blue Origin even based its own brand new headquarters – opened in January 2020 – around an odd U-shaped sprung structure.
Nevertheless, SpaceX’s small test tank successes do not necessarily guarantee that the same kind of tests performed at full scale will be equally successful. The biggest proof of concept for SpaceX’s upgraded Starship production methods will involve manufacturing, fueling, static-firing, and – eventually – flying a complete Starship prototype built with the same methods as those test tanks.
The pressure vessel section of Starship SN01 – said pathfinder prototype – appears to be nearly complete, missing only its integrated engine section and oxygen tank dome before it could theoretically be ready to start cryogenic testing. Incredibly, information acquired and published by NASASpaceflight.com reporter Michael Baylor indicates that SpaceX wants to complete the prototype and transport Starship to its nearby launch site just ten days from now.
A step further, if things go as planned, SpaceX wants to install Starship SN01’s three Raptor engines and perform a live static fire test as soon as early March. In short, SpaceX’s Starship program is likely about to enter a new period of ambitious, rapid-fire testing. Stay tuned!
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
