News
SpaceX repairing upgraded Starship prototype after first test
SpaceX workers have been spotted repairing the company’s newest Starship prototype in the days after the rocket’s first partial test.
Starship S24 was transported to SpaceX’s Starbase, Texas orbital launch site (OLS) on May 26th after about two and a half months of assembly, marking the first time SpaceX transported a new Starship prototype to a test stand since August 2021. Less than 24 hours later, after attaching Ship 24 to a new test bay located beside the actual ‘orbital launch mount,’ the Starship prototype came to life and began its first proof test.
Unfortunately, while it’s impossible to judge with certainty without official confirmation, Ship 24 either failed to complete that test or did not make it through unscathed.
Known as an ambient or pneumatic proof test, the main goal is to pressurize a Starship or Super Heavy prototype with nonflammable, ambient-temperature nitrogen gas to ensure that the rocket and all its plumbing are structurally sound and working as expected. A successful test would likely require a prototype to reach and sustain flight pressures – up to 8.5 bar (~125 psi) as of 2020 – without exhibiting any significant leaks or problems.
For a while, Ship 24’s first ambient proof test went about as expected, with lots of small vents from its main liquid oxygen (LOx) and methane (LCH4) tanks. No activity was visible at the ship’s nose, where vents and plumbing attach to a pair of small landing (header) propellant tanks. Ship 24 is the first Starship with an upgraded version of those tanks after SpaceX decided to remove the methane header tank from the main methane tank and relocate it directly under the oxygen header tank, which takes up the tip of Starship’s nose.
After an hour or two of testing, a muffled bursting noise different from previous vents was heard, followed by a quieter ‘whoosh’ more akin to a long vent. At the same time as the loud noise was heard, a good dozen or so of S24’s thousands of heat shield tiles were knocked off the section of the hull between the Starship’s main tanks and nose cone. SpaceX depressurized Ship 24 soon after and within a few hours, workers could be seen extracting a pipe from the ship that appeared to have been bent almost in half.
Three days later, workers were spotted guiding apparent replacement pipes into Ship 24. Altogether, it appears that some small section of Ship 24’s internal piping failed catastrophically after it was pressurized during the vehicle’s first pneumatic proof test, knocking tiles loose and possibly damaging other adjacent plumbing. Given the location of that piping inside Ship 24’s nose section, there’s a nonzero chance that the failure occurred when SpaceX attempted to pressurize the Starship’s new header tanks, which would have started by pressurizing the propellant and gas lines leading to them. That would explain the first muffled burst, the subsequent venting sound that slowly faded to nothing, and the loss of heat shield tiles.
It would also explain why SpaceX decided to leave Starship in place and conduct repairs at the pad. Super Heavy Booster 7, which suffered a dramatic plumbing failure during an early proof test, was moved back to one of Starbase’s covered assembly bays for repairs. Had Ship 24’s incident been severe, it would have likely left the pad as well. The fact that Ship 24 did not move indicates that the failure was fairly minor and contained, only impacting some easily-replaceable plumbing.
Additionally, SpaceX appears to have moved Raptor heat shield components and a missing cover for one of Ship 24’s four flaps to the pad since the incident. On top of the team that has been working all weekend to repair the Starship, other sets of workers have set about closing out Ship 24’s ‘raceway’, which protects hundreds of feet of smaller plumbing and cables and a flight termination system that runs from the top to the bottom of the ship’s tanks; and some have begun preparing to fill gaps in Ship 24’s heat shield. Most of that work can be classified as ‘finishing touches’ and none of it would be prioritized if Ship 24 was not in decent shape.
Still, even minor damage is a setback. Ship 24’s next opportunity for redemption is a 10am to 10pm CDT window on Wednesday, June 1st, with backup windows available on Thursday and Friday.
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
