News
SpaceX to ship Starship ‘deluge’ hardware from Florida to Starbase
SpaceX appears to be preparing to ship a huge collection of hardware – including parts of a possible launch deluge system – from Florida to Texas.
Captured live by NASASpaceflight’s 24/7 Space Coast Live webcam, hardware began accumulating at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Turning Basin on January 12th. Within a few days, four midsize storage tanks, two or three large storage tanks, five high-pressure gas tanks, multiple sections of an apparent launch deluge system, and an unfinished Starship booster transport stand were all staged and ready for shipment. Save for implicit statements from reliable sources, there wasn’t an obvious guarantee that the hardware was all SpaceX’s or headed to the company’s Starbase, Texas factory and launch site.
But combined with the sheer volume of hardware and its privileged presence on NASA KSC property, the last part to arrive – the base of an unmistakable Starship (booster) transport stand – all but confirmed that the destination is Starbase. SpaceX has already shipped hardware from Florida to Starbase multiple times, including a trio of tanks sent in October 2022, which further increases the odds that everything visible is destined for Starbase.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
It might also not be a coincidence that in its first attempt to build a Starship launch site at Kennedy Space Center, SpaceX installed four midsize tanks and plenty of high-pressure gas tanks at LC-39A. The resurgence of work on a totally different Starship pad design at 39A in late 2021 likely made that hardware redundant. It’s possible that the four smaller tanks set to be shipped to Starbase originated at 39A and are being moved in the hopes that they can be more useful elsewhere.
Additionally, satellite photos taken on January 3rd, 2023 and shared by Harry Stranger show a pair of larger tanks also sitting unused at Pad 39A. Ultimately, it’s almost certain that the delivery is SpaceX hardware bound for Starbase, Texas.
A deluge? Under my Starship?
The most interesting part of the shipment is arguably a group of giant metal tubes. Measuring several feet wide, dozens of feet long, and fitted with multiple outlets connected to the same giant pipe, the likeliest possible explanation is that the manifolds are part of a plan to upgrade SpaceX’s Texas Starship launch site with a deluge system.
Almost all rockets use some sort of deluge system to prevent their own exhaust from damaging or destroying themselves or their surroundings. A large volume of water sprayed into the space just below a rocket’s engines can prevent the immense acoustic energy (sound) they produce from wreaking havoc. A deluge also helps protect launch pad hardware by allowing some of the energy in the exhaust to boil and vaporize water instead of eating into concrete or steel. But CEO Elon Musk has infamously stated that SpaceX is intentionally attempting to build an orbital launch site that doesn’t need a flame diverter for Starship – the most powerful rocket in history.
That’s gone about as well as one might expect. Even Starship, which can produce about 18% as much thrust as Super Heavy, has repeatedly incinerated the concrete beneath its test stand, spreading molten debris for thousands of feet and starting major brush fires in a nature reserve. After every six-engine Starship static fire, SpaceX must painstakingly remove and replace all of the concrete beneath the test stand.
The problem is even more apparent at Starbase’s orbital launch mount, where SpaceX has begun to conduct Super Heavy booster static fire tests. Thus far, SpaceX has had to replace the concrete under the OLM after almost every Super Heavy static fire – a process that takes a week or two. The company recently replaced that concrete with a mix optimized to survive high temperatures, but it remains to be seen if that will survive a direct blow from the most powerful rocket in history.
For the time being, Starbase’s environmental permit only allows up to five orbital launches per year, making lengthy post-launch repairs mostly inconsequential. However, if SpaceX ever wants Starbase to rapidly launch multiple Starships back to back – essential for in-space refilling – or launch dozens of Starships per year, it’s become clear that a deluge system is likely essential.
Starship’s Florida deluge
Some part of SpaceX knows that. The design of Starship’s first Florida launch pad has already been upgraded to include a giant deluge ring embedded in the ground at the base of the mount. Unusual design aside, the structure is sized such that it’s almost certainly a high-flow deluge system capable of spraying thousands of gallons of water per second.
Three months later, SpaceX appears to be preparing to ship two giant deluge manifolds and some deluge plumbing from Florida to Starbase. If SpaceX intends to retrofit Starbase’s existing orbital launch site with a giant deluge system, the process would likely take months and render the pad more or less unusable from start to finish. Alternatively, Musk recently reported that SpaceX intends to build a “rocket test facility” at a separate property it purchased in South Texas. Located miles from the Starbase launch pad, the former gun range could potentially allow SpaceX to test Starships and Super Heavy boosters without disrupting orbital launch preparations and taking over Starbase’s only orbital launch mount.
Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the same site – currently used for storage and limited Starship tank testing – already hosts some smaller parts of a potential Starbase deluge system. Regardless, it’s clear that significant changes are coming to Starbase and its associated facilities.
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
