News
[Update: fully stacked] SpaceX speeds up work on Starship with “hundreds” of upgrades
Update: Less than 24 hours after publishing, SpaceX began installing Starship SN15’s nose section, stacking the significantly upgraded rocket to its full 50m (~165 ft) height.
Excluding the installation of a few minor ‘aerocover’ surfaces used to smooth out the interface between Starship’s hull and four flaps, SN15 will effectively be complete and ready to roll to the launch pad as soon as its nose and tank sections have been welded together. Historically, for SN8-SN11, that process – including visual and radiographic (x-ray) inspections for quality assurance – has taken as few as one or two days, meaning that SN15 could technically be ready to roll out as early as Monday, April 4th.
Of note, SpaceX has already scheduled a road closure from 7am to noon CDT (UTC-5) on Monday – likely to transport a crane to the pad but potentially enough to get both a crane and SN15 to the launch site. Simultaneously, an upgraded or modified hydraulic ram – used to simulate the thrust of three Raptors – was already moved to the pad and installed on one of two suborbital launch mounts on Saturday, April 3rd, meaning that the pad will likely be ready for SN15’s installation tomorrow.
If SpaceX manages to complete both transport tasks on Monday, odds are very good that SN15 will be able to get through one or several qualification tests – including an ambient-temperature pressure test, cryogenic proof, wet dress rehearsal, and static fire – by the end of the week. Stay tuned for updates!
Beginning almost immediately after Starship SN11’s midair explosion earlier this week, SpaceX has accelerated work on a new Starship prototype upgraded with “hundreds of improvements.”
In November 2020, Musk first revealed plans to implement “major [Starship] upgrades” as early as prototype SN15, though the improvements involved in the first apparent Starship ‘block’ change were never detailed. On 30 March 2021, the same day as Starship SN11’s foggy, ill-fated launch debut, Musk confirmed that the SN15+ block upgrade would feature “hundreds of design improvements [to] structures, avionics, software, and [Raptor engines].”
Around the same time, after more than two months of little to not visible activity, work on Starship SN15 rapidly restarted in an apparent bid to achieve Musk’s stated goal of rolling the rocket to the launch pad “in a few days.”
Possibly due to a significant shift in focus from Starship mass-production to the construction of Boca Chica’s first orbital-class launch pad and flight tests of prototypes SN8 through SN11, Starship SN15 has been in the stacking and assembly phase since the turn of the new year. About a month ago, in early March, the rocket’s tank section was stacked to its full height and has been making slow progress in the weeks since – clearly not a pressing priority.
The day after SN11 exploded, SpaceX stacked the last two pieces of Starship SN11’s nose and joined their plumbing and avionics runs, more or less completing the upper third of the prototype. Both nosecone flaps were installed a few days prior. On the same day, March 31st, SpaceX rolled Starship SN15’s tank section (the bottom two-thirds of the rocket) out of Boca Chica’s ‘mid bay’ assembly building and installed both after flaps before moving the vehicle into the ‘high bay.’
With those steps complete, Starship SN15 should be just a few days away from nose installation, at which point it will need just a few more days of work before SpaceX will be ready to install the rocket on a transporter and roll it to the launch pad. It’s not implausible that that move will happen as early as next week, perhaps even leaving enough time for an acceptance test or two before the weekend.
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
