News
Elon Musk says SpaceX’s second Starship booster prototype is almost finished
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that the second Starship booster prototype is “almost done” and has revealed that work on the first flightworthy booster has yet to begin.
For unknown reasons, SpaceX has recently changed the naming scheme for Starship and Super Heavy boosters. The booster SpaceX is currently assembling in Boca Chica has been referred to as “Booster 2” by Musk himself but, according to NASASpaceflight, is internally known as Booster 3 or B3, replacing its former Booster Number 3 (BN3) designation.
Regardless, SpaceX began stacking the Super Heavy booster prototype now known as B3 in mid-May. Around six weeks later, 23 or 24 rings have been stacked to create a partially finished prototype 9m (~30 ft) wide and approximately 42m (~140 ft) tall.
Just like Super Heavy ‘pathfinder’ BN1, which was scrapped almost the instant it reached its full height last March, Booster 3 appears to destined to stand 36 rings – 65m (~215 ft) – tall once complete. While drastically oversimplifying the process of vertically assembling the largest rocket booster ever built, that means that Super Heavy B3 is just shy of two-thirds (~65%) complete.
By simply averaging the time it’s taken for SpaceX to stack B3 to a height of 42 meters, the booster could reach its full height around three weeks from now (July 15th, give or take a week). For the most part, the most challenging and unfamiliar parts of Super Heavy B3 manufacturing and assembly have already been completed. Relative to Starship, which SpaceX has now built more than half a dozen prototypes of, Super Heavy is just a stretched Starship with no flaps, no nosecone, a far more complex engine section, and a forward dome section that needs to support car-sized grid fins.
Super Heavy’s larger propellant tanks also require a methane transfer tube – used to carry methane through the booster’s lower liquid oxygen tank – more than twice as tall as anything built for Starship. By all appearances, that ~35m (~115 ft) tall transfer tube has already been safely installed inside B3’s incomplete tanks. Around June 14th, B3’s lower two-thirds were effectively completed when its LOx tank stack was mated to the booster’s 29-Raptor engine section.
Outfitted with complex structural modifications to support massive grid fins and the first advanced ‘hot gas’ maneuvering thrusters ever spotted in public, Booster 3’s forward dome is already in the process of being welded to a stack of three steel rings. Once complete, the rest of Super Heavy B3 integration is fairly simple as far as rocket assembly goes and will require four more welding operations. Like BN1, there’s a good chance that SpaceX will mate Booster 3’s upper (methane) tank separately and then install the ~24m (~80 ft) tall, 13-ring section on top of the LOx stack to effectively complete the booster’s main structure
Of course, after the structure is complete, SpaceX will still need to finish plumbing, wiring, and generally outfitting a Super Heavy booster for the first time ever. Finally, while it remains to be seen just how finished B3 will actually find itself before heading to the launch pad, that process could also involve installing and testing four massive steel grid fins and, most importantly, up to 29 Raptor engines – a figure only beaten by the Soviet Union’s ill-fated N1 rocket.
Perhaps most significantly, Musk also revealed that B3 is not the Super Heavy booster assigned to Starship’s first orbital launch attempt, meaning that SpaceX will have to complete Booster 3 testing and build Booster 4 before that orbital test flight can occur. Given that Booster 3 assembly is on track to take more than nine weeks, Starship’s first orbital launch attempt is thus unlikely to happen before late August or September.
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
