News
SpaceX’s fourth Starship prototype has begun to take shape in Florida
SpaceX’s Florida Starship team appears to have taken the first step towards assembling Starship Mk4, the fourth full-scale prototype of the next-generation spaceship.
Although SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas Starship campus is undeniably in the lead with their first prototype, Starship Mk1, it appears that the company’s Florida campus is far ahead of Texas with their second Starship prototype.
At the moment, SpaceX has set up two separate Starship build teams in Florida and Texas with the intention of creating a sort of internal competition to see which group’s Starships are first to flight and first to orbit. For the most part, it’s assumed that this “competition” is less a fight to the finish line than it is an A/B test, a common software development practice in which separate teams pursue different methods of achieving the same goals.
In the likely event that SpaceX is performing a radical form of A/B testing with rocket prototypes, both teams are continuously sharing best-practices and lessons-learned as they work to find the best possible methods for fabricating hardware and assembling Starships. Nevertheless, in A/B testing, fundamentally different approaches also tend to result in development schedules and final products that are unique, even if the end results are similar.
In the context of Starship, this is exactly what can be observed at SpaceX’s Florida and Texas facilities. Similarities abound in the radical method of en plein air manufacturing being implemented, while the Starship Mk1 and Mk2 hardware being built and assembled are also relatively similar, even if they have some distinct characteristics.
For example, it’s been observed that Starship Mk2 has almost certainly been constructed out of steel rings that are significantly taller than those used to assemble Starship Mk1. Taller rings meant that Mk2 needed fewer overall rings to reach the same height as Mk1, a fact that likely contributed to the impressive speed with which SpaceX’s Florida team was able to stack and weld most of Starship Mk2’s aerostructure.
Star(ship)fleet
According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, those similarities (and slight differences) are likely to continue for at least several more generations of prototypes. At a September 28th presentation and update on Starship, Musk revealed his opinion that Starship could be ready for its first orbital test flight(s) as few as six months from then – sometime in Q2 2020, give or take. To get there, Musk estimated that at least 5-6 Starship prototypes would need to be built in the interim.
Starship Mk3 will be built in Texas – in fact, the first ‘seamless’ steel ring may have already been fabricated at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities. According to Musk, Starship Mk4 will be SpaceX Cocoa’s second prototype. Based on John Winkopp’s October 17th drone overview, it appears that SpaceX’s Florida team has mounted the first steel Starship Mk4 ring atop a new work mount, potentially marking the start of Starship Mk4 assembly.
SpaceX’s Texas team has prepared at least one full-scale sample of a single-weld (‘seamless’) steel ring, perhaps the start of Mk1’s successor, Starship Mk3. Meanwhile, SpaceX Cocoa – seemingly at some kind of impasse with the final integration and assembly of Starship Mk2 – has churned out a huge number of similarly smooth steel rings, to the extent that Teslarati previously (and incorrectly) surmised that the first Super Heavy booster was being fabricated.
During Musk’s September 28th presentation, he effectively confirmed that the almost two-dozen steel rings hanging out on SpaceX’s Cocoa, Florida campus were almost certainly the beginnings of Starship Mk4. However, given the sheer number of rings present (23), the reality is that what could be the entirety of Starship Mk4’s cylindrical tank and thrust structure section is probably sitting outside in Florida, waiting to be stacked. Altogether, those 23 rings could reach a height of more than 40m (130 ft), potentially more than is actually needed for a Starship tank section.
Last but not least, local photographer and spaceflight fan Jon Van Horne captured what looks like a new Starship tank dome in work at SpaceX’s prospective Kennedy Space Center (KSC) build site, known as Roberts Rd. Given that Starship Mk2 already has two domes installed and a third and final dome staged and ready for installation, this fourth dome is very likely the first for Starship Mk4.
In short, SpaceX’s Florida team is probably weeks ahead of Boca Chica in the process of building a second full-scale Starship prototype. Of course, the ultimate winner of this mock competition isn’t Florida or Texas, it’s SpaceX’s Starship program as a whole.
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
