News
SpaceX could begin testing its Mars rocket in Texas by late 2018, early 2019
On the heels of a successful wet dress rehearsal for Falcon Heavy, SpaceX’s President and COO Gwynne Shotwell spoke briefly about SpaceX for an aerospace conference located at Texas’ Academy of Medicine, Engineering & Science. Ars Technica’s senior spaceflight editor Eric Berger was in attendance and provided a rough outline of live tweets during the first group of presentations.
While the phrasing cannot provide absolute confirmation, Berger summarized a statement by Shotwell suggesting that SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas launch site, currently in the early stages of construction, could be ready to host “vehicle tests” as soon as late 2018, early 2019. At this point in time, based on comments from Shotwell and CEO Elon Musk, it can be reasonably assumed that SpaceX’s Texas launch facilities will be dedicated mainly to the company’s interplanetary colonization efforts, and will probably be tailored to support the testing and eventual launches of BFR/BFS.
Some news from Shotwell: Brownsville launch site ready for vehicle tests in late 2018, early 2019. Move to launch site after that.
— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 11, 2018
After nine months of earnest construction and rehabilitation, SpaceX’s LC-40 pad was recently reactivated and has since supported two launches without any major hitches. At the same time, LC-39A in flux in order to support launches of SpaceX’s new Falcon Heavy rocket, the size of which required some concomitant upgrades to multiple ground systems. With both of those major tasks now effectively complete, SpaceX’s pad construction team is free to either refocus their efforts towards Boca Chica. Over the past several months, Boca Chica has seen a gradual but consistent level of development, mainly by way of unaffiliated SpaceX contractors. These changes have been dutifully tracked over the last several years on NASASpaceflight.com forums by a handful of friendly local residents interested in the changes coming to Boca Chica and Brownsville, Texas, a nearby town.
SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities and STARGATE dishes (center-left) seen at sunset from the top of the giant crane garage. (anonymous Instagram user)
Most significantly, the last several months have seen three major developments. First and most prominently, a permanent facility called STARGATE externally appears complete and its two large radio communication dishes have been installed nearby. The STARGATE facility is a public-private partnership between the University of Texas at Brownsville (now part of University of Texas Rio Grande Valley) and SpaceX, with the academic components focusing on research that SpaceX undoubtedly has interest in: improved orbital spacecraft tracking and communications. Operationally, SpaceX will use the facilities to communicate with and operate its Crew Dragon spacecraft during launches, set to begin with an uncrewed demonstration mission as early as August 2018.
Second, an absolutely massive trolley crane appeared on SpaceX’s land and was eventually housed in an apparently purpose-built shed. The crane dwarfs anything currently used at SpaceX’s launch facilities and is almost certainly a custom-ordered piece of equipment, and thus would be both expensive and explicitly purposeful. What that purpose might be is currently unknown, but it is entirely plausible that the crane is intended to support initial testing (or even limited manufacturing) of SpaceX’s first BFS prototype rockets. This speculation has now been strengthened by Shotwell’s January 11 2018 comment on potential “vehicle tests” occurring at the site within a year or so, and also meshes with a presentation she gave in October 2017 at MIT. It also fits with Elon Musk’s 2017 IAC comments that BFR construction tooling and facilities were respectively already ordered and under construction.
The boom of the giant crane seen in late 2017, parked at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities. (Reddit /u/ ticklestuff)
Third and last, the aforementioned SpaceX-following locals observed the early stages of a solar power install beginning on some of SpaceX’s Boca Chica land in late 2017, and also noted that at least some of its contractors were part of Tesla Solar. Plans and permits for solar power were acknowledged as far back as 2014, although at that point the contractor was Solar City (now a part of Tesla). A handful of months later, NASASpaceflight user and all-around awesome guy Nomadd has installed a webcam on a tall pole with a wonderful view of both the solar installation (now nearly completed) and STARGATE. The acre of solar panels can be expected to produce as much as half a megawatt (MW) at peak sun, likely more than enough to offset a considerable amount of the facilities’ electricity usage even after it begins to be see serious use.
-
- A Tesla Energy/Solar City contractor’s vehicle spotted at the Boca Chica solar installation. (NSF /u/ bocachicagal)
-
- As of last week, the solar installation appears to be nearly complete. (NSF /u/ Nomadd)
Originally announced as an additional Falcon launch facility in 2014, Boca Chica has remained relatively dormant over the last three years, and it is truly exciting to see activity ramping up. There are admittedly significant barriers that will prevent SpaceX from effortlessly repurposing its Boca Chica pad for BFR, a much larger rocket. If SpaceX intends to do that, they will almost certainly need to pass a significantly updated FAA environmental impact review and account for any remediations that might be required. Still, that is a small ask for for Brownsville’s local government and Texas as a whole, both of which have clearly enjoyed and begun to benefit from SpaceX’s presence in the otherwise unknown area. SpaceX is unlikely to give up on Boca Chica in the near term, so long as Ms. Shotwell maintains her belief that it is effectively the perfect location for BFR launches.
Overall, Shotwell’s comments over the last several months and today in particular are increasingly encouraging, and things are likely to only speed up as 2018 progresses, allowing SpaceX to focus more and more of its expertise on BFR, BFS, and its South Texas testing and launch facilities.
Full disclosure: As Shotwell did not specify which vehicle or vehicles could be expected to begin testing in 2018/2019, it is possible that Falcon 9, not BFR, was the statement’s target. This article should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is educated speculation based upon public information from SpaceX executives and Texas contractors. Teslarati reached out to SpaceX for additional information, but the company was unable to comment further on Shotwell’s presentation at the moment.
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
