News
SpaceX Starship stacked with ballast for hop test debut
SpaceX has installed a custom-built ballast atop its fourth full-scale Starship prototype, a sign that the company is rapidly approaching the ship’s first Starhopper-style hop test.
Although CEO Elon Musk officially “redirected” SpaceX’s resources away from Starship’s first flight and towards Crew Dragon’s NASA astronaut launch debut, the company continues to work around the clock to ready Starship SN4 for the program’s biggest test yet. Designed with the goal of creating a fully-reusable, ultra-capable launch vehicle that is unprecedentedly affordable, SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster have made impressive progress over the last 12 or so months.
In July and August 2019, Starhopper – a low-fidelity testbed and proof of concept – successfully performed two untethered hop tests, ultimately flying more than 150m (~500 ft) above ground before safely touching down. Three months later, the first full-scale Starship prototype was destroyed almost immediately after its first pressure test began, a failure that lead SpaceX to expedite factory upgrades. Just six months later, SpaceX has completed multiple successful tests, including pressure tests that pushed beyond the pressures needed for safe human spaceflight, several full wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) with live propellant, and three Raptor engine static fires. In fewer words, Starship is ready for its next big test: flight.
However, Starship SN4 currently has just one Raptor engine installed and will remain in that configuration for its inaugural hop, expected to reach a maximum altitude identical to Starhopper (150m/500ft). The odd configuration means that the rocket will be propelled by asymmetric thrust, as Starship’s ‘thrust puck’ engine section is designed to hold three Raptor engines in a triangular formation. Raptor is capable of producing up to 200 metric tons (~440,000 lbf) of thrust with an unclear level of throttle control (likely mediocre according to comments made by Elon Musk).
Impressively, although it might seem reasonable to assume that Starship SN4 is about as heavy as the ~120 ton Starhopper, the clear and present need to install substantial ballast suggests otherwise. Combined with comments made during SN4’s April 2020 transport from factory to launch site, it appears that even SpaceX’s early Starship engine sections weigh just 50-60 metric tons (110,000-125,000 lb) empty. That weight doesn’t account for the flaps, heat shield, nose section, or many other heavy components that orbital Starships will eventually need but is still impressive.
That impressive weight reduction, Raptor’s inability to safely throttle low, and the FAA’s lack of interest in dozens (up to hundreds) of tons of explosive propellant flying above or around populated areas poses its own challenges for the first full-scale Starship flight. The addition of ballast helpfully solves (or at least alleviates) several of those issues. Notably, ballast can prevent SpaceX from having to fuel Starship SN4 with dozens of extra tons of explosive propellant to counteract the high thrust of its single engine and permit a safe launch and landing.
At the same time, if Starship SN4’s wet weight is reduced by carrying less propellant during its first flight, that actually exacerbates the problem of Raptor’s small throttle range, as a lighter ship would be much harder to manage as the engine rapidly burns propellant and thus loses mass. With ballast, Raptor won’t have to throttle as low as it would otherwise have to to ensure a gentle rate of deceleration. Built out of sheet steel and two spare rolls of the same steel used to form Starship rings, Starship SN4’s new ballast likely increases its dry mass by some 50% or more (25+ metric tons).
Pending Crew Dragon’s inaugural astronaut launch, now scheduled no earlier than 3:22 pm EDT (19:22 UTC), May 30th after weather delayed the first May 27th launch attempt, Starship SN4 has no testing periods on the calendar at the moment. Speaking around May 23rd, Musk stated that the ship was likely at least a “few weeks” away from its flight debut, suggesting that the ship will perform another static fire test to prepare for its first hop as early as next week. Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX’s works towards two very exciting Crew Dragon and Starship milestones.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
