News
SpaceX finishes stacking new Starship for the first time in six months
For the first time in more than half a year, SpaceX has stacked a new Starship prototype to its full height, hopefully marking the end of a period of relatively slow progress.
That period began when Starship S20 was stacked to its full height in early August 2021. Until very recently, Ship 20 was said and expected to be the prototype assigned to Starship’s first orbital test flight, making it exceptionally important. In an unusual change in attitude, SpaceX may have felt the same, which may explain why Starship S20’s first static fire test took place more than two months after it first left the factory. A year prior, Starships SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 all completed proof testing a matter of weeks after rollout.
That sudden change of pace relative to past development has meant that Ship 20 is the only Starship prototype SpaceX has tested since May 2021 and the only Starship to graduate from final assembly to testing in the last six months. In that period, Ship 20 has completed a few major cryogenic proof tests and four static fires – two of which ignited all six Raptor engines. While Ship 20’s six-engine tests were unprecedented and marked a major program milestone, SpaceX once static-fired Starship SN9 three times in one day in January 2021.
However, that period of sluggish prototype testing may finally be coming to an end. In August 2021, when SpaceX stacked Starship S20 and Super Heavy B4 for the first time, the general assumption was that the seemingly imminent march towards orbital flight testing would be similar to SpaceX’s attempts to land a Starship from medium altitude between December 2020 and May 2021 – lots of prototypes in flow and multiple back-to-back tests and launches, in other words. That was not the case.
Starship S21, for example, began final assembly in mid-October 2021 and its tank section and nose section were both fully stacked less than a month later. However, rather than stack them into a second complete ship, SpaceX has left those separate assemblies sitting around Starbase for the last three months. Simultaneously, while Ship 21’s apparent limbo seemed to imply that SpaceX was implementing another block upgrade and moving on to newer prototypes, the company actually started stacking Starship S22 about a week after S21’s separate sections were completed. Only three months later have SpaceX’s plans for those three sections finally become clear.
On February 14th, 2022, Ship 22’s tank section followed Ship 21’s nose section into Starbase’s high bay assembly facility, where they were quickly stacked to form a full Starship prototype the same day. This raises the question: why?
Given that Starship S20 effectively completed qualification testing with three successful static fires in December 2021 and a fourth in early January 2022 and has been seemingly ready to fly ever since, its Super Heavy booster readiness – not ship readiness – that appears to be holding SpaceX back. Perhaps because of pad readiness issues, SpaceX has yet to perform a single Super Heavy static fire test – or even a less risky wet dress rehearsal – at the orbital launch site. As such, it’s hard to say why SpaceX has suddenly decided to finish Ship 22 instead of focusing on a newer version of Starship (S24) and Super Heavy (B7) – both of which are expected to debut upgrades.
It’s possible that Ship 22 is being completed merely as practice for the Starbase workforce, who have gone half a year without fully assembling another ship prototype, but then there would have been no reason not to install Ship 21’s nose on Ship 21’s tank section instead of withholding it for Ship 22. Ship 22 could also be a replacement for Ship 21 if appearances are misleading and SpaceX uncovered issues with the older prototype during testing but again, no booster is ready to launch either ship.
Regardless of the outcome or purpose of Ship 22, seeing any new Starship prototype completed is an exciting and interesting change of pace after half a year of following the windy paths of Ship 20, Booster 5, and Ship 21 to their uncertain goals.
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
