News
SpaceX’s upgraded Starship passes first ‘cryoproof’ test after repairs
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says an upgraded Starship prototype has passed its first cryogenic proof or ‘cryoproof’ test after undergoing a week of repairs.
Around noon, local sheriffs closed the road to Starbase’s orbital launch site (OLS) and SpaceX cleared the pad of all personnel, freeing up Starship S24 for the next stage of testing. A week prior, on May 27th, Ship 24 suffered some degree of internal damage during a simpler pneumatic proof test with ambient-temperature nitrogen gas. It’s now clear that most of that pneumatic proof test was successful, demonstrating that the Starship’s main propellant tanks and associated plumbing and valves were structurally sound and working as expected.
Still, for about a week after that first test, teams of SpaceX workers swarmed the Starship prototype 24/7 and were seen extracting damaged plumbing and carefully transporting replacement parts inside. Only on the morning of June 2nd was Ship 24 sealed up again.
Cryogenic fluid loading – liquid nitrogen or a combo of LN2 and liquid oxygen (LOx) – began shortly before 3pm CDT (UTC-5) and the Starship’s main tanks were fully filled about 70 minutes later. SpaceX then let those fluids naturally warm, causing a small portion to boil into gas and gradually raise the pressure inside Ship 24’s main tanks. As the pressure grew, sections of the layers of frost and ice that formed on the outside of its thin steel tanks occasionally sloughed off in sheets or broke off in fragments – the only evidence of stress aside from venting.
After about an hour fully filled, SpaceX began detanking and depressurizing Ship 24. The road and pad were reopened around 8:40 pm. All told, aside from an apparent leak on its liquid oxygen tank access hatch, a very common occurrence, Ship 24 exhibited no unusual behavior and made it through its first cryoproof without any obvious issue. More importantly, SpaceX did not appear to reattempt the pneumatic proof test the ship partially failed before the harder cryoproof test, implying that its first test was mostly successful. CEO Elon Musk later confirmed that the Starship had passed its first cryoproof test a few hours after.
Despite Musk’s positive comment, there was no evidence of activity in Ship 24’s nose section, where a number of crucial vents and secondary header tanks – meant to serve as attitude control thrusters and store landing propellant – are located. Ship 24 is the first Starship prototype with a new design that moved both header tanks into the tip of the nosecone. The nose itself is also the first with a number of other manufacturing and design upgrades to reach a test stand, so verifying that it works as expected is doubly important.
Given that the plumbing that failed in the first test may have been connected to Ship 24’s nose section and header tanks and that neither was obviously involved in the subsequent June 2nd cryoproof, it’s likely that the Starship prototype is not done with cryoproof testing just yet. Nonetheless, the ship’s survival and passage of its first cryoproof bodes well for the next steps.
In the near future, SpaceX is expected to move Ship 24 to a nearby ‘suborbital pad’ and test stand that has been significantly modified to simulate the thrust and mechanical stress of six Raptor 2 engines. If or when Ship 24 passes that test or tests, SpaceX will likely remove the stand’s hydraulic rams and begin installing Raptor engines and associated heat shielding. Then, Starship S24 can enter the final stages of qualification: wet dress rehearsal and static fire testing.
SpaceX has requested additional road closures for potential testing on June 6th, 7th, and 8th.
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
