News
SpaceX prepares new Starship tank for explosive test after rapid construction
Over the last few weeks, SpaceX’s South Texas Starship team has been making progress at a pace unprecedented even for the famously agile rocket company and is moving full speed ahead to kick off a new series of explosive tests as early as this morning.
Ever since SpaceX’s original Starship Mk1 prototype spectacularly failed during a November 2019 pressure test, the company has been rapidly rearranging and modifying the development schedule for its next-generation full-reusable rocket. Be it a side effect or coincidence, SpaceX effectively began closing its Florida Starship factory a week after Mk1’s demise and even shipped some of its Florida-built Starship hardware to Texas in recent weeks. However, most of the Florida workforce (up to 80%) was reportedly redirected elsewhere in the company, avoiding layoffs.
Some portion may have even moved to Texas and joined SpaceX’s Starship Boca Chica facilities. Given just how aggressively SpaceX has been expanding its local facilities and preparing new hardware for the next round of improved Starship prototypes, it seems quite likely that the South Texas outpost did indeed receive an influx of skilled workers. Most recently, the company has demonstrated its rapidly growing expertise in the bizarre art of building steel rockets en plein air by fabricating and integrating new tank domes and steel rings and then shipping the curious contraption to its nearby launch site in a matter of weeks from start to finish.
Although it’s difficult to determine the chronology of every single part of the mysterious new tank, it’s fairly safe to say that work on its structure began less than a week before SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted a surprise update, indicating on December 27th that he was in Boca Chica, Texas working all night on “Starship tank dome production”.
In simple terms, the business half of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship upper stage and Super Heavy boosters are comprised of three main parts, shared by almost all launch vehicles. Both are rocket stages that must be as light as physically possible while supporting thousands of tons worth of supercool liquid oxygen and methane propellant. The majority of a simple rocket is ultimately a duo of cylindrical tanks capped by tank domes – also known as bulkheads. The bottom bulkhead of boosters and upper stages also serves as a mounting point for an engine section, where the vehicle’s rocket engines are attached to the rocket body in order to transfer their thrust throughout the rest of the structure.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Starship tank domes have turned out to be “the most difficult part of [the rocket’s] primary structure” to manufacture, thus explaining why he was apparently assisting the Boca Chica team all night on December 27th.
Starship Mk1 exploded on November 20th, 2019 during a nonflammable propellant loading test, a failure that unofficial videos have compellingly linked to the weld joint connecting the rocket’s upper tank dome to its cylindrical tank. That section of the rocket began leaking cryogenic propellant moments before the entire upper dome tore off the rest of the vehicle and launched hundreds of feet into the air.
All hail Baby Tank
In an apparent response to the unsatisfactory results of Starship Mk1’s manufacturing methods, SpaceX has rapidly initiated an already-planned upgrade of its Starship facilities and manufacturing methods in South Texas, taking delivery of a wealth of new tools over the last several weeks. Most recently, SpaceX’s latest step towards demonstrating that it has substantially improved manufacturing quality arrived in the form of a single propellant tank – the same diameter as Starship Mk1 but much shorter than any possible flight hardware.
Quickly nicknamed Bopper (short for Baby Starhopper) by locals and close followers, the miniature Starship test article came together at a truly spectacular pace. Comprised of two single-weld steel rings and two brand new tank domes, it appears that all four of the components were nothing more than parts and steel stock less than three weeks ago. The first sign of activity came around December 19th, when technicians began placing pressed steel sections onto a bulkhead (dome) assembly jig – used to precisely hold the pieces in the right shape and place as they are welded together.
Incredibly, aside from taking less than three weeks to go from miscellaneous parts to an assembled Starship tank delivered to the test site, SpaceX technicians appeared to finish stacking and welding its two halves (each a ring and a dome) perhaps a handful of hours before it was lifted onto a transporter and driven to the launch pad.
Even for SpaceX, moving a prototype from factory to test site hours after its primary structure was welded together represents an almost unfathomably fast pace of work – truly unfathomable in traditional aerospace. Whether or not such a pace of work is smart, sustainable, or worth it remains to be seen, but SpaceX is nevertheless on track to pressure test its new mini Starship tank as early as this morning, potentially resulting in another spectacular overpressure event (i.e. explosion).
If the tank survives up to or beyond the pressures SpaceX has designed it to, it’s safe to say that the next full-scale Starship prototype could come together far sooner than almost anyone might have expected.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
