News
SpaceX’s next Starhopper flight needs more analysis for FAA go-ahead, says Elon Musk
According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the company’s next major Starhopper flight test is still awaiting FAA approval due to a need for more hazard analysis, presumably required because Starhopper will be traveling much higher than before.
On August 9th, SpaceX completed a routine wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with Starhopper, loading the vehicle with propellant and fluids and replicating a launch countdown up to the point of Raptor ignition. Starhopper remains untethered in a sign that SpaceX doesn’t have plans for a static fire test before the low-fidelity rocket prototype’s next flight milestone. Originally scheduled for August 12th, that milestone – a 200m (650 ft) hop test – has been indefinitely delayed as SpaceX awaits an updated permit from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The oddity of the apparent difficulty SpaceX is having with the FAA’s experimental permit process is deepened by the fact that Starhopper is already permitted by the FAA and demonstrated its first successful flight just a few weeks ago, on July 25th. On top of the fact that the local Boca Chica and Brownsville, Texas airspace tends to be extremely quiet, it’s unclear what exactly is holding up SpaceX, the FAA, or both in what should otherwise be a relatively streamlined process.
A few weeks ago, after one false start on July 24th, Starhopper performed its first untethered flight ever on July 25th, successfully demonstrating its integrated steel propellant tanks, avionics, software, and Raptor propulsion over the course of 20 or so seconds of flight. Starhopper’s inaugural flight was delayed at least several weeks by a major bug with SpaceX’s next-gen Raptor engine, described by Elon Musk as a problem with a certain frequency of vibration (i.e. mechanical resonance).
According to Musk, said resonance failure mode was effectively solved with unspecified modifications made to the sixth Raptor engine produce (Raptor SN06). That engine became the first to successfully pass SpaceX’s regime of pre-hop static fires in McGregor, Texas around July 10th and was shipped south to Boca Chica and installed on Starhopper scarcely 24 hours later.
Assuming those vibration issues have been completely quashed, Musk has also stated that SpaceX is aiming to produce as many as two Raptor engines per day by the end of 2019. It’s believed that all engines preceding SN06 (SN01-05) were either damaged or destroyed during testing, be that a result of intentional testing-to-destruction or anomalous behavior during certain test regimes. It should be noted that full-scale Raptor is still undoubtedly in development and hardware failure during developmental testing is more predictable and valuable than it might seem. As long as the program can handle it, ‘hardware-rich’ development (i.e. moving fast and breaking things) can be equally – if not more – valuable than an extremely cautious get-it-right-the-first-time approach.
Regardless, once SpaceX’s propulsion engineering team is confident that the more major bugs that plagued early Raptor engines have been alleviated, they will likely give the go-ahead for the engine manufacturing team to begin ramping production rates. Musk believes that SpaceX could be ready for the first test flights of either or both of the company’s orbital Mk1 and Mk1 Starship prototypes as early as mid-September, milestones that will eventually require three sea-level Raptor engines and up to three vacuum Raptor engines per rocket.
Meanwhile, although SpaceX has yet to begin assembling the first Super Heavy booster(s), said boosters will require dozens of Raptor engines each for their first flights. Musk says that SpaceX will start out with something like 20 Raptor engines per booster to minimize losses and disruption in the event of a catastrophic failure, eventually expanding to as many as 35 engines per booster as confidence grows.
For now, Starhopper’s next flight test was scheduled from August 16th through the 18th but has since been tentatively rescheduled to Aug. 19-21. Starhopper will remain grounded until the FAA is satisfied with SpaceX’s updated hazard analyses for the rocket’s 200m flight test.
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
