News
SpaceX outfits first orbital-class Starship booster with grid fins, Raptor engines
In the space of two days, SpaceX has outfitted Starship’s first orbital-class Super Heavy booster with four car-sized grid fins, stacked the rocket to its full height, and begun the process of installing up to 29 Raptor engines.
As part of what CEO Elon Musk has described as a “Starbase Surge,” SpaceX has reportedly sent hundreds of employees normaly stationed in California, Florida, and Central Texas to Boca Chica. There, SpaceX has been working for months to build Starship’s first orbital launch pad and first orbital-class ship and booster and prepare all three for an inaugural “Orbital Test Flight” as quickly as possible. Originally scheduled to occur no later than July 2021, Musk’s extremely ambitious target unsurprisingly came and went but SpaceX appears to be well on its way to an “aim for the Moon; miss; fall among the stars” situation as all the parts of Starship’s orbital launch debut begin to come together.
In the last few days, it’s become abundantly clear that SpaceX is likely moving faster than even its most optimistic followers expected.
On July 30th, after less than two days of assembly, Super Heavy Booster 4’s completed (upper) methane tank stack – 13 rings and ~25m (85 ft) tall was briefly rolled out of SpaceX’s Boca Chica ‘high bay.’ A few hours later, the booster tank was rolled back in and SpaceX technicians kicked off the installation of four car-sized steel grid fins. A day and a half later, all four fins were installed.
Unlike the famous cast titanium grid fins on Falcon boosters, Super Heavy’s fins are built out of welded steel (much heavier but magnitudes cheaper) and not designed to retract, meaning that they will remain in their deployed configuration at all times. While also allowing for a much simpler design, B4’s fixed (but rotatable) grid fins will also make it dramatically easier to catch Super Heavy boosters – as Elon Musk has said is the plan – on their grid fins using a giant tower with arms.
Almost immediately after the last grid fin was installed, SpaceX moved Super Heavy B4’s larger (aft) liquid oxygen tank stack onto a stand optimized for transport and stacked the newly finned methane tank on top of the rocket, raising it to its full ~65m (~215 ft) height. After stacking, it takes a team of SpaceX welders at least several hours to join the two steel booster sections into one monolithic rocket.
At the same time as technicians were working to complete Booster 4’s airframe, SpaceX accepted delivery of no less than five Raptor engines, raising the total number of engines delivered in the last five days to at least 18 – including two Raptor Vacuum variants for Starship S20.
In a sign of the breakneck pace SpaceX is working at, teams began installing Raptor engines on Booster 4 before its two halves were fully welded together. In a matter of hours, no less than 12 Raptor Boost (RB) engines have been rolled out of one of SpaceX’s three Boca Chica factory tents and lined up for installation on the first flightworthy Super Heavy. Requiring 29 engines total, it’s not implausible that SpaceX is attempt to fully outfit Booster 4 with all of its Raptors before rolling the rocket down the road to the orbital launch pad.
According to Elon Musk, SpaceX could attempt to install the Super Heavy booster on the pad’s launch mount/table (integrated just days ago) as early as “~Tuesday” and the company has already filed for transport-related road closure on Monday afternoon.
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
