News
SpaceX repairing heat shield, reinstalling Raptors on first orbital-class Starship
SpaceX has begun reinstalling three of the six Raptor engines that will power the first orbital-class Starship and repairing the heat shield that will hopefully protect it on its first trip to space.
Known as Starship 20 or S20, the 50m (~165 ft) tall steel rocket prototype has been stationed at one of SpaceX’s two suborbital testing pads since August 13th. No testing has been done, though, and a small army of SpaceX technicians and engineers have instead spent the last three or so weeks effectively turning a collection of steel tanks, tubes, and parts into a functional rocket. While it’s unclear why SpaceX chose to do that outfitting work at an unsheltered launch pad, new activity suggests that it may be almost complete.
Exactly one month ago, SpaceX stacked Starship S20 on top of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) on August 6th, briefly creating the largest rocket in history and completing a fit test that was admittedly just as much a photo op. Ship 20 was rapidly destacked and returned to SpaceX’s Starbase factory, where all six of its Raptor engines were removed. About a week later, Ship 20 returned to the pad and has remained installed on Suborbital Pad B ever since.
At the time, the implication was that SpaceX had removed Ship 20’s engines to allow the prototype to complete cryogenic proof testing with hydraulic thrust simulators. However, despite having carefully modified Pad B over several weeks for that exact purpose, those modifications were rapidly removed before Ship 20’s second rollout. Precluding a proof test with thrust simulation, the next logical conclusion was that SpaceX would still perform a cryogenic proof test before reinstalling Ship 20’s Raptors and moving on to a static fire campaign.
Now, even that appears to have been p1recluded. Instead, as if Ship 20 were the second or third or fourth in a series of prototypes, SpaceX rolled three center Raptors to Pad B on September 5th and began installing the engines on Starship on the 6th. It’s hard to say anything with confidence given how chaotically Starship S20’s to-be-determined qualification testing has changed in the last several weeks but, with plenty of uncertainty, Raptor installation implies that the vehicle will perform its first ambient pressure and cryogenic proof tests with engines installed.
It remains to be seen if Ship 20’s three vacuum-optimized Raptor engines will also be installed over the next few days (seemingly the logical assumption) or if SpaceX will instead complete proof tests and center Raptor static fire testing before finally moving into new territory. SpaceX has never static fired more than three Raptors at once and certainly never tested multiple Raptor Vacuum (RVac) engines in close proximity – let alone all six simultaneously.
Meanwhile, much of the focus of the last few weeks appears to have been on finishing Ship 20 plumbing and avionics wire runs, though it’s hard to say exactly what has been done. What is extremely visible and easy to follow, though, is the process of finishing the first orbital-class Starship heat shield and repairing a few hundred tiles broken during its pathfinder installation. SpaceX has installed 500-1000+ tiles on flown Starship prototypes like SN15 but the company has never come close to the ~15,000 needed to cover the entire windward side of the world’s largest rocket upper stage.
SpaceX has undertaken that process for the first time over the last six or so weeks and unsurprisingly seen a number of successes and failures. At some point along the way, a significant fraction of the ceramic, dinner-plate-sized tiles SpaceX technicians installed chipped, broke, shattered, or ran into other fitment issues. Over the last month or so, a great deal of progress has been made fixing those problem tiles and SpaceX has also more or less completed tile installation on the angular ‘aerocovers’ that protect Starship’s flap mechanisms – requiring dozens of custom tiles with complex shapes and curves.
As of September 6th, Starship S20’s heat shield appears to be around 95% complete and the installation of Raptor engines implies that the rocket’s plumbing, avionics, and tankage are also nearly finished. In other words, after many weeks of work, SpaceX’s first orbital-class Starship prototype could be ready to kick off cryoproof and static fire testing just a week or so (and maybe less) from now. Stay tuned for updates!
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
