News
SpaceX to attempt to crush Starship test tank
A week after rolling a different ‘test tank’ from its South Texas Starship factory to nearby launch and test facilities, SpaceX has moved a second test tank to the pad.
Hearkening back to a period in 2020 where SpaceX built and tested six different Starship test tanks in a period of six months, the company appears to be preparing to test another batch of tanks in the hopes of qualifying Super Heavy booster design changes and clearing the way for a significant upgrade to all Starship tank domes. The sequencing of the latest tank raises some questions, however.
Known unofficially as the “EDOME” tank in reference to a cryptic label on the side of one of its halves, the first new test tank’s purpose is much more cut and dry. While its steel rings appear to be unchanged from current Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, the tank’s two domes share almost nothing in common with the dozens of domes SpaceX has built and tested over the last three years of development. The new domes are much simpler and should be easier to manufacture than the domes SpaceX is familiar with. Thanks to their more spherical shape, they should also be more efficient, allowing future Starship tanks to store a bit more propellant while taking up the same amount of vertical space. SpaceX has yet to begin testing the EDOME tank since its June 8th rollout and does not appear to be much closer to starting 12 days later.
On June 16th, SpaceX rolled a second test tank to the launch site, which eventually joined the EDOME tank at a staging area that used to be a Starship landing pad. Whereas the EDOME tank is more of a generic test article, the second tank – known as B7.1 – is specifically designed to test Super Heavy booster design changes.
B7.1 is a bit like a miniature Super Heavy. Its three-ring top section is mostly similar to the top section of a booster and is reinforced with dozens of external stringers. Oddly, it is missing cutouts for grid fins, and the tank’s forward dome does not have the reaction frame those hypothetical grid fins would anchor to. On the tank’s bottom half, the same stringers are present, and the tank features a new design that squeezes four slightly shorter rings into the same height as three. The Super Heavy thrust dome those rings enclose is also a new design that expands the number of central Raptor engines from 9 to 13.
It’s unsurprising that SpaceX wants to test those significant design changes. SpaceX did technically conduct a similar test in mid-2021 with a test tank known as BN2.1, but that tank featured a thrust dome with room for 9 older Raptors that would have generated about ~1700 tons of thrust. B7.1’s testing will go a step further than BN2.1 and use a structural test stand that should allow SpaceX to simulate the compressive forces Super Heavy boosters might experience in flight, adding another dimension of stress on top of the 13 hydraulic rams that will simultaneously subject the test tank to the equivalent of ~3000 tons (~6.6M lbf) of thrust.
And lift over to the crusher for a nice bit of torture. pic.twitter.com/SxV3BTs7ry— Chris Bergin – NSF (@NASASpaceflight) June 19, 2022
What is surprising, however, is the fact that SpaceX has waited so long to build and test a tank like B7.1. SpaceX has already completed an entire Super Heavy booster (B7) with all the design changes B7.1 is meant will test and recently installed 33 new Raptor 2 engines on that prototype. A second upgraded booster, B8, is also nearly finished. In that sense, B7.1 is quite unusual and feels more like a reluctant afterthought than part of a methodical development process. If B7.1 suffers an unintentional failure during testing, SpaceX could be forced to abandon two nearly-finished Super Heavy boosters, wasting months of assembly and testing and rendering prototypes that are likely worth tens of millions of dollars all but useless.
The design changes B7.1 is meant to test are not exactly radical, but it’s still unclear why SpaceX has chosen to conduct those tests after building two entire Super Heavy boosters. Earlier on in Starship development, SpaceX regularly used test tanks to qualify significant design changes before applying those changes to full prototypes, limiting the amount of resources that could be wasted on any unproven prototype. Thankfully, Super Heavy Booster 7 may have already completed similar Raptor thrust simulation tests on the same test stand B7.1 was recently installed on, meaning that SpaceX’s confidence may have been well-placed. However, if the first use of the ‘can crusher’ stand on a Super Heavy test tank finds any problems or ends in failure, B7 and B8 could still be easily rendered unusable or incapable of flight, significantly delaying Starship’s first orbital launch attempt.
Lately, SpaceX has been focused on preparing Starship S24 and Super Heavy B7 for static fire tests that could eventually qualify the pair to support the first orbital test flight. It’s not clear if or when SpaceX will be able to set aside time and evacuate Starbase’s busy orbital launch site to test B7.1 or the EDOME tank.
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
