News
SpaceX teases more Starship flight tests “in the days ahead”
A SpaceX engineer hosting the company’s recent record-breaking Starlink launch told viewers to “stay tuned for additional [Starship] test flights in the days ahead.”
Spoken during a segue focused on Starship’s first fully successful landing days prior, the senior SpaceX employee’s choice of words could scarcely have been more intriguing and wide-open to interpretation. Ever since Starship SN15 stuck the landing on May 5th, the ~50-meter (~165 ft) tall steel rocket has taken a small but noteworthy departure from partial prototypes SN5 and SN6 – both of which survived short hop tests last year.
Unlike Starship SN5 and SN6, which both took two full days to safe, SpaceX recovery teams were able to approach full-size prototype SN15 less than four hours after touchdown and an adjacent highway was opened to the public just half a day after that. More importantly, as of May 11th, Starship SN15 has effectively been ready for transport for five days.
Unlike any prior Starship test, Starship SN15 was the first vehicle to test out a new custom-built transporter that also serves a purpose similar to the Octagrabber robots SpaceX uses to secure landed Falcon boosters at sea. It’s unclear how exactly the jig works but it appears to separate into two pieces – both attached to a pair of self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs) – that can then encircle a landed Starship and be bolted together.
In that sense, just like Octagrabber allows SpaceX to secure Falcon boosters without a crane, SpaceX’s new Boca Chica recovery jig allows it to secure landed Starships without having to attach a crane and lift a rocket with unknown structural integrity. Technically, once that recovery jig is in place around Starship and the rocket is firmly secured to it, there’s nothing preventing SpaceX from immediately transporting it elsewhere. SN5 and SN6 went back to SpaceX’s Starship factory almost immediately after they were craned onto transporters.
That process also required landing leg removal, which involved a crane lifting SN5 and SN6 and workers carefully balancing the rocket on jack stands to gain access. With SN15, that new jig meant that SpaceX could lift the Starship with the transporters’ own hydraulic leveling systems, removing the need for a crane. Thanks to that improvement, the rocket’s legs were removed less than two days after landing.
However, beyond moving Starship SN15 from the edge of the landing zone to its center, SpaceX has yet to actually transport it anywhere more than four days after it was ready to roll. According to CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX “might try to refly SN15 soon” and the fact that the company still hasn’t transported Starship SN15 back to the build site seems to imply that Musk really meant “soon”.
In other words, there isn’t an obvious reason for SpaceX to keep Starship SN15 at the launch site unless the company believes that transporting it elsewhere would be counterproductive. Given that SpaceX has yet to install replacement landing legs on the rocket, it’s hard to guess the company’s plans for SN15, but it is clear that SpaceX itself is undecided. According to an excellent NASASpaceflight.com overview of where things currently stand, SpaceX is evaluating its next steps and options include reflying Starship SN15, rolling out Starship SN16 and flying that prototype “to a higher altitude,” or even jumping straight to “orbital testing” with a future Starship and a Super Heavy booster.
SpaceX’s webcast host hinting at multiple additional Starship launches “in the days ahead” has not helped to calm that storm of speculation and possibilities. As of May 11th, SpaceX has nevertheless scheduled a a road closure for an apparent transport to or from the launch pad. What transpires could easily end all speculation if Starship SN15 or SN16 wind up on the move, but it’s just as likely that SpaceX is simply preparing to move the latest of seven or eight custom-built propellant storage tanks to its growing orbital launch site.
For now, we’ll just have to wait and see.
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
