News
SpaceX rapidly shipping upgraded Raptor engines to Starbase
SpaceX appears to have opened the floodgates and begun shipping upgraded ‘Raptor V2’ engines to Starbase en masse in preparation for crucial Starship and Super Heavy testing.
The first functional Raptor engine delivery in around half a year and the first Raptor V2 delivery ever appeared to arrive at Starbase on March 30th. About a month and a half prior, SpaceX brought an early Raptor V2 prototype damaged during testing to serve as a backdrop for CEO Elon Musk’s February 10th Starship presentation, marking the first time the public was allowed to see or photograph the engine up close.
Less than three months later, Raptor V2 engines that passed proof testing without damaging or destroying themselves have begun to rapidly pile up inside one of Starbase’s three main production tents.
Though Raptor V2 has plenty in common with its Raptor V1 and V1.5 predecessors and, for the most part, looks very similar, Musk has repeatedly stated that the engine represents a major evolution from past Raptors. Most importantly, Raptor V2 was designed to significantly cut production cost and time. To achieve that, almost every major component was either fully redesigned, tweaked, or refined in some way to make Raptor simpler and more compact.
One example is the decision to slash the number of flanges (mechanical joints) in the engine’s plumbing by replacing them with welds. Making plumbing more monolithic could remove dozens of parts, seals, and potential leak points and significantly speed up manufacturing at the cost of making it harder – if not impossible – for SpaceX to inspect and replace certain pipes or pipe sections in a modular manner.
That process was repeated throughout each Raptor system, resulting in an engine that looks more streamlined than earlier variants. As a result of its more refined design and improvements to other critical components, Musk says that even though Raptor V2 now costs about half as much to build as V1.5, it’s also “much more…reliable.”
Despite significantly improving Raptor’s reliability, simplicity, and cost, SpaceX also managed to boost its maximum thrust by almost 25%. Raptor V2 engines now “routinely” operate at record-breaking main combustion chamber pressures of 300+ bar (~4400 psi) and are able to produce up to 230 tons (~510,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level. The older Raptor V1.5 engines that flew on Starships SN8-SN11 and SN15 and were installed on Super Heavy Booster 4 and Ship 20 were designed to produce around 185 tons (~410,000 lbf) at 250 bar (~3600 psi).
Following the premature retirement of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4), which was meant to help send Starship S20 to space on the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt, that orbital launch debut is now guaranteed to use a different booster and ship powered by Raptor V2 engines. Ship 24 is a strong candidate for the mission’s Starship, while it remains to be seen if SpaceX will fully repair and attempt to proceed with Booster 7 or if Booster 8 – which is almost complete – will take point.
Either way, the pair will need at least 39 qualified Raptor V2 engines to begin integrated testing, pass several major static fire milestones, and prepare for flight. Since SpaceX appeared to kick off Raptor V2 deliveries to Starbase on March 30th, a photo shared by Musk on April 26th revealed that the company has managed to deliver at least 18 of the upgraded engines in the last four weeks. At least one more engine was also delivered on April 28th.
That means that SpaceX already has enough engines to begin static fire tests with a full cluster of 13 central Raptors on Super Heavy B7 or B8. By the time Ship 24 is fully assembled, Booster 7 is repaired, or Booster 8 is completed, there’s a good chance that SpaceX will have all the engines it needs to fully outfit a Starship and Super Heavy pair – not quite by the end of April, as Musk predicted, but not far off.
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
