News
SpaceX shuffles Starships, gears up for more Super Heavy static fires
SpaceX is busy preparing for the orbital launch debut its next-generation Starship rocket, but the company’s South Texas rocket factory is also working around the clock to prepare several more sets of ships and boosters for the flight testing that will follow.
That was more obvious than usual on November 8th, when SpaceX made moves to prepare both of its finished Starships for new phases of testing. SpaceX kicked off the busy day by removing Starship S25 – a newer prototype that arrived at the launch site just three weeks prior – a stand dedicated to proof testing ships. Three hours later, after spending three of the last four weeks sitting on top of Super Heavy Booster 7, Starship S24 was ‘destacked’ (lifted off of B7 and lowered onto a stand on the ground) in the early afternoon.
Booster 7, Ship 24, and Ship 25 have all been busy since mid-October. SpaceX stacked Booster 7 and Ship 24 for the first time on October 11th and then attempted to test the fully-stacked rocket on October 13th. By some accounts, although almost nothing was visible to the public, the first full-stack test may have gone poorly, potentially even endangering pad technicians that approached the rocket to troubleshoot. On October 16th, SpaceX fully destacked Ship 24, and CEO Elon Musk noted that the company was “proceeding very carefully” to avoid an explosion that could set “Starship progress back by ~6 months.”
But if there was a major issue on October 13th, SpaceX didn’t show it, and Ship 24 was reinstalled atop Booster 7 on October 20th without any obvious maintenance or repairs. SpaceX then kicked off an unusual series of tests on October 24th, during which it only filled the liquid oxygen (LOx) or liquid methane (LCH4) tanks of Super Heavy B7, Ship 24, or both vehicles at once. A rare NASA briefing on October 31st later called them “single-species prop[ellant]” tests – a kind of extra-cautious testing that had never been seen before at Starbase. A few days prior, a member of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) noted that an accidental explosion that damaged Booster 7 in July had caused SpaceX to “increase [the rigor of its] systems engineering and risk management,” explaining the sudden influx of unusually conservative testing.
By the time Ship 24 was destacked from Booster 7 on November 8th, SpaceX had completed seven single-species tests, four of which involved loading LOx or LCH4 into both stages and three of which only tested Super Heavy. Booster 7 and Ship 24’s tanks were fully filled and LCH4 and LOx were never simultaneously loaded on either stage.
NASA’s October 31st briefing reported that SpaceX had plans to destack Ship 24 before conducting additional static fire testing with Booster 7. While B7 completed 1, 3, and 7-engine static fires in August and September, those tests were nowhere close to the full 33-engine static fire required to properly qualify the most powerful rocket in history. According to NASASpaceflight.com managing editor Chris Bergin, SpaceX’s next goal is to fire up approximately half of Super Heavy B7’s Raptors.
Strangely, although Ship 24 was believed to have completed all of the standalone testing needed to clear it for flight, SpaceX installed the vehicle on a stand used for Starship static fire testing on November 9th, implying that more standalone testing may be required. For now, that shouldn’t pose a problem as long as SpaceX wraps up any additional Starship testing around the same time as Booster 7’s next static fire campaign wraps up, but it could delay full-stack launch readiness if it takes any longer.
Finally, after Ship 25 was removed from SpaceX’s other Starship test stand on November 8th, it was rolled back to Starbase’s Starship factory. Ship 25 first rolled to the launch site on October 19th and has since completed four visible tests. On October 28th, Ship 25 survived a pneumatic proof test that showed that its tanks were leak-free and capable of surviving flight pressures (roughly 6-8.5 bar or 90-125 psi). Three cryogenic proof tests followed on November 1st, 2nd, and 7th. The first cryoproof was likely just that – a test that pressurized Ship 25’s tanks and filled them with cryogenic liquid nitrogen (LN2) or a combination of liquid oxygen and LN2.
The next two tests likely took advantage of the customized test stand, which has been semi-permanently outfitted with a set of hydraulic rams that allow SpaceX to simulate the thrust of six Raptor engines while Starship’s structures are chilled to cryogenic temperatures and loaded with roughly 1000 tons (~2.2M lb) of cryogenic fluids. If a Starship can survive those stresses on the ground, the assumption is that it will likely survive similar stresses in flight.
Assuming that Ship 25’s first several proof tests were successful, which they appear to have been, SpaceX returned the prototype to its Starbase factory to install six Raptor engines and a series of shields and firewalls that will protect those engines from each other. Once fully outfitted, Ship 25 will return to the launch site for static fire testing and take Ship 24’s place on Suborbital Pad B. Ship 24 took approximately two months to go from its last cryoproof to its first static fire. But its testing got off to a relatively rocky start, so Ship 25 could be ready sooner.
SpaceX could begin the next phases of Booster 7 and Ship 24 testing as early as November 10th or November 13th.
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
