News
SpaceX scraps first Starship prototype to make way for new and improved rockets
A bit less than a month after SpaceX’s first full-scale Starship prototype was partially destroyed during testing, the damaged rocket has been almost completely scrapped to make way for new and improved Starships.
On November 20th, SpaceX effectively tested the Starship Mk1 – the first full-scale prototype – to destruction, pressurizing the rocket’s tank section (lower half) until it quite literally popped its top. The pressure wave that failure created damaged almost every internal component of the massive vehicle, all but guaranteeing that SpaceX would have to scrap the vehicle and move on to new prototypes.
Those future prototypes will take advantage of the many, many lessons learned from Starhopper’s two test flights and several additional grounded tests, as well as the many learning experiences presented through Starship Mk1’s pathfinder manufacturing, assembly, and test campaign. As is SpaceX’s signature, the company is choosing to learn by building actual hardware and making the inevitable mistakes that come hand in hand with such an eccentric and ambitious program.
Above all else, SpaceX is trying to redefine the minimum infrastructure needed to build high-performance launch vehicles at a scale comparable to or even larger than NASA’s Saturn V, the largest rocket ever successfully launched. Modern rockets like Falcon 9 and Atlas V are built in relatively clean and environmentally-controlled environments and Saturn I and V – while quite a bit less sterile – were at least built inside large hangar-like facilities.
With Starship, SpaceX instead wants to build rockets even larger than Saturn V out in the elements and with a far more common (and thus affordable) workforce, (theoretically) made possible in large part thanks to its extensive use of stainless steel. Case in point, Starhopper – a low-fidelity Starship test bed – was quite literally welded together on the South Texas coast by welders far more familiar with building water towers. While not without its teething pains, Starhopper proved to be incredibly sturdy and resistant to anomalous behavior and successfully performed two separate flight tests in July and August 2019.
Three months after Starhopper’s second and final hop test, SpaceX’s Starship Mk1 tank section – the lower half of the rocket – was moved to the launch site and began a series of tanking tests. The first few tests were completed successfully and focused on searching for leaks with a neutral cryogenic liquid (likely liquid nitrogen). After the majority of those leaks were sealed, SpaceX moved into liquid oxygen load testing a few days later. For unconfirmed reasons, it turned out that that first liquid oxygen pressure test would also be Starship Mk1’s last.
On November 20th, SpaceX pressurized Starship Mk1 to its limits, with almost all of the visible creases and wrinkles in its steel surface visibly smoothing out as the supercool liquid oxygen caused frost to form on the exterior. Ultimately, SpaceX pushed the vehicle beyond its limits and its uppermost tank dome quite literally popped off of Starship’s tank section, whether the overpressure event was intentional or unexpected. The force of that overpressure event essentially sent a shockwave through Starship, crushing and warping its two remaining tank domes and transfer tubes like an aluminum soda can.
In simpler terms, very few parts of Starship Mk1 escaped unharmed, all but guaranteeing that it would not be worth the effort to repair it. Instead, SpaceX has almost entirely scrapped the prototype over a period of two weeks. According to an official statement released shortly after Mk1’s failure, SpaceX will attempt to recover and reuse as much of Mk1 as it can and those few salvageable parts will be added to an entirely new prototype, deemed Starship Mk3.
Although it’s disappointing that Starship Mk1 was unable to perform any kind of Raptor engine testing, let alone flight tests, it’s safe to say that the pathfinder prototype has been well worth the time and effort it took to build. Regardless of flight or engine testing, a ton of Mk1’s value lies in its utility as a hands-on, physical testbed for SpaceX employees to perform experiments and learn how to build steel rockets – and build them outside in less than friendly weather conditions.
SpaceX is in the midst of rapidly expanding its presence in Boca Chica, Texas, including a new launch control center, an expanded landing and launch pad, new production facilities, and more. The company has also just begun churning out numerous monolithic (single-weld) steel rings that will likely become part of Starship Mk3 in the near future. It will likely be several months before that next-generation prototype is as close to completion as Starship Mk1 was, but it should be well worth the wait and well worth its predecessor’s sacrifice.
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
