News
SpaceX installs Starship Mk1 rocket’s flaps for the second time in build-up to flight debut
A little over a month after SpaceX CEO Elon Musk presented an update on Starship in Boca Chica, Texas and technicians dressed the rocket up for the show, SpaceX has begun to install Starship Mk1’s flaps for the second time.
This time, with any luck, those flaps are here to stay until Starship Mk1’s inaugural launch debut, an ambitious flight test with a target altitude of 20 km (12 mi).
Around the second half of September, SpaceX technicians appeared to begin working around the clock to fully assemble Starship, outfitting the exterior with the beginnings of plumbing, power lines, and avionics harnesses, stacking the Mk1 prototype’s two halves, and installing the vehicle’s large fore and aft flaps. During SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s September 28th Starship update, what looked to be the largely finished Starship Mk1 served as the main backdrop – an undeniably impressive one, at that.
As would soon become clear, SpaceX’s September 2019 Starship Mk1 integration was actually more of a mock-assembly – all the parts involved appear to genuinely be real flight hardware, but almost all of it was only temporarily attached to Starship to give the partial appearance of a finished ship. By October 1st, technicians began removing Starship Mk1’s four flaps, flap shrouds, and leg shrouds, finally culminating in the separation of the rocket prototype’s upper and lower halves.
The fact that neither Musk or SpaceX spokespersons noted that Starship wasn’t actually complete is at least a little unsavory, although it’s admittedly unsurprising given CEO Elon Musk’s known affinity for grand gestures and events. On a positive note, Starship’s mock-assembly likely served as an excellent learning experience for the Boca Chica team and thankfully only seems to have caused a week or two of delay.
Rapid progress in Boca Chica
Despite the mild disruption of dressing Starship Mk1 up for Musk’s presentation, SpaceX Boca Chica has made a huge amount of progress in the five weeks since. Barely three weeks after the rocket’s forward flaps (canards) were removed, SpaceX technicians began the reinstallation process with one major visible difference: a massive motorcycle-sized actuator.
On the first round of installations-for-show, Starship Mk1’s flaps featured no such mechanism, confirming suspicions that much of the hardware installed at the last second was not quite finished or was only being installed for Musk (and practice). The appearance of a previously unseen actuator mechanism on the first reinstalled canard suggests that this time around, SpaceX is installing Starship’s flaps with their final purpose of controlling Starship’s free-fall in mind.
Instead of copying Falcon 9’s proven method of vertical launch and vertical landing, SpaceX is taking a more radical approach with Starship that will see the spacecraft reenter Earth’s atmosphere belly-first, slow its forward speed to near-zero, and fall directly down for approximately 25 km (15.5 mi), using its flaps like a skydiver’s limbs. Perhaps just a few hundred meters above the ground, Starship will finally perform an aggressive flip maneuver, igniting its Raptors while sideways, swerving to neutralize that horizontal velocity, and finally landing on six small legs.
In this sense, although they certainly look the part, Starship’s aerodynamic control surfaces are very explicitly not wings and are instead meant to interact with the atmosphere at an almost 90-degree angle of attack (AoA). In line with that strategy, they only have to actuate with a single degree of freedom, drastically simplifying Starship’s control surfaces.
Similar to Starship Mk1’s newly filled-out canard actuators, SpaceX technicians have installed two massive hinges/mounts for Starship’s larger after flaps. Aft flap installation will likely start as soon as SpaceX technicians have installed the bulk of Starship Mk1’s external plumbing and wiring, a milestone that appears to be fast approaching.
Starship Mk1’s lower half was unexpectedly moved about a mile to SpaceX’s nearby launch facilities prior to the installation of its nose section, meaning that SpaceX will likely have to transport the nose to the launch pad for final mating. It’s unclear what tests SpaceX specifically plans to kick off Starship Mk1’s pre-flight preparations with, but it’s safe to assume that the most imminent milestone is a wet dress rehearsal (WDR), possibly preceded by a tank proof test.
The latter procedure would be designed to prove that Starship Mk1’s pressure vessel is both leakproof and structurally sound and would nominally involve filling the spacecraft’s tanks with a neutral fluid (likely water or liquid nitrogen). A WDR would see SpaceX load Starship as if preparing for launch (requiring liquid oxygen, methane, nitrogen, and helium) but stopping just prior to the engine ignition and liftoff that would otherwise follow. Although unlikely, a WDR could result in a massive fire or explosion if Starship were to lose structural integrity during the test, which is why the aforementioned neutral testing is typically performed first when handling brand new launch vehicles.
Finally, assuming Starship Mk1 successfully passes the above tests, SpaceX will use the vehicle to perform Raptor’s first triple-engine static fire test. That static fire will likely be the final major test activity before SpaceX readies Starship Mk1 for its 20-km flight debut, which will serve as a more or less full-fidelity test of Starship’s exotic skydiver-like landing.
Regardless of how exactly Starship Mk1’s imminent test campaign will play out, SpaceX has road closures scheduled on November 7th, 8th, and 12th. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess what is planned for Thursday and Friday, but it could potentially involve a tank proof test, launch pad checkouts, propellant loading, or something more benign, like transporting Starship’s nose section to the pad for final installation. 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
