News
SpaceX Starship booster heads to launch pad for the fifth time
For the fifth time in five months, SpaceX has transported its most advanced Starship booster prototype from the Starbase factory to the launch pad, setting the stage for another round of testing.
Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7) returned to the factory for the fourth time on August 12th after becoming the first prototype of any kind to perform a static fire engine test while installed on SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch mount. In the days prior, the booster completed two back-to-back static fire tests with one of the 20 Raptor engines installed on the rocket, both of which apparently gave SpaceX enough confidence to prepare for the next phase of testing.
That relatively cautious progress only came after SpaceX attempted to test all 33 of the prototype’s Raptors at once during its first engine test. Whether it was the fault of overzealous managers or executives or a genuine oversight is not clear, but the combined behavior of Super Heavy and the orbital launch pad was not properly characterized before testing began. As a result, the cloud of flammable gas the rocket released during its attempted 33-engine ‘spin-prime’ test found an ignition source and violently exploded on July 11th, causing damage throughout Booster 7’s aft engine section that required several weeks of repairs between July 15th and August 6th.
When the Super Heavy rolled to the pad for the fourth time on August 6th, it was missing all 13 center Raptors, leaving only the outer ring of 20 Raptor Boost engines partially installed for the tests that followed. Thankfully, things went much better on the second try and Booster 7 completed two spin-prime tests with a single Raptor engine, followed by two successful static fire tests on August 9th and 11th. The latter test was the longest Starbase static fire ever (by a factor of ~3) and lasted about 20 seconds, allowing SpaceX to test Booster 7’s autogenous pressurization. That system pressurizes Super Heavy’s tanks by turning small quantities of cryogenic liquid propellant into gas, ensuring that its tanks remain stable as they’re rapidly drained of thousands of tons of propellant.
On August 12th, Booster 7 returned to the factory, where workers installed the rocket’s 13 center engines for the second time. Booster 7 headed back to the orbital launch site (OLS) on August 23rd and the pad’s robotic launch tower used a pair of arms to lift the rocket off its transport stand and place it on the launch mount by the end of the day.
In addition to readying Booster 7 for its next phase of static fire testing, teams of SpaceX workers took advantage of the unplanned lull in testing to modify the orbital launch mount. It’s impossible to know what exactly was done without official confirmation, but it’s likely that SpaceX was attempting to quickly fix the shortcoming(s) that allowed the July 11th explosion to happen. Without a fix, it’s unlikely that SpaceX would want to proceed with plans to ignite large numbers of Raptor engines simultaneously – a series of tests that must be completed before Starship can safely attempt its first orbital launch.
It’s unclear what exactly that fix entails, but it could involve a system to constantly flood the engine section with fire-stopping nitrogen gas or potentially take the shape of a system of vents that will connect to every Raptor engine and remove methane gas before it can turn into flammable clouds.
It’s possible that Booster 7 has returned to the launch pad solely for fit checks or some other basic proof-of-concept testing. It’s also possible that the returns signifies that SpaceX is confident in its quick launch mount fix and ready to restart static fire testing.
As Booster 7 prepares for that next phase of testing, SpaceX may also be ready to restart static fire testing with Starship S24, which paused shortly before Super Heavy returned to the factory. SpaceX appears to be modifying the suborbital launch mount and test stand Ship 24 is installed on, which could explain the lack of ship testing since August 11th. SpaceX has 12-hour test windows tentatively scheduled on August 24th and 25th, either of which could be used to test either or both prototypes.
If all goes to plan, Ship 24 and Booster 7 will eventually complete all the qualification testing SpaceX can throw at them and be ready to support Starship’s first orbital launch attempt sometime before the end of 2022.
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
