News
SpaceX Starship factory aiming to build five megarockets in 2023
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX’s South Texas Starship aims to build up to five of the two-stage megarockets in 2023.
SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas hardware endeavors began in an empty field in late 2018, kicking off Starhopper testing in 2019. In late 2019 and early 2020, the company began building the bones of the factory that exists today, relying heavily on several giant tents (“sprung structures”) similar to those used by Tesla. SpaceX has already begun the process of replacing those tents with larger, permanent buildings, but two of the original tents continue to host crucial parts of the Starship manufacturing process.
In terms of useful output, that manufacturing slowed down a bit in 2022. That slowdown can likely be partially explained by the need to move equipment and processes into the first finished section of Starfactory. But in general, SpaceX was simply focused on finishing and testing Starship S24 and Super Heavy B7 – both stages of the latest vehicle meant to attempt Starship’s first orbital launch.
Only by late 2022 did Ship 24 more or less complete proof testing, and Booster 7 is still several major tests away from solidifying full confidence in its design. SpaceX has only conducted limited testing with fully-stacked Starships, further reducing the amount of confidence the company can have in the assembled rocket. Lacking the data needed to know with certainty whether the tweaked designs of Starship and Super Heavy are good enough for several orbital test flights, it’s thus unsurprising that SpaceX only produced a handful of usable ships and boosters in 2022.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
But if CEO Elon Musk’s forecast is correct, the company has plans to increase Starbase’s useful output in 2023. According to Musk, SpaceX aims to build “about five full stacks” this year, translating to five flightworthy Starships and five Super Heavy boosters.
In 2022, SpaceX finished Booster 7 and built Booster 8, Booster 9, and most of Booster 10. Booster 8 was almost immediately relegated to the retirement yard. Booster 9, featuring some significant design changes, completed a limited amount of proof testing and returned to the factory in early January – likely for Raptor engine installation. The fate of Booster 10 is unclear, but it stands as a prime example of how fast SpaceX can actually build massive Starship hardware when conditions are right. SpaceX began stacking B10 in late October 2022 and the vehicle is just two stacks away from full height three months later.
In the same period, SpaceX finished and immediately retired Starship S22, finished and began testing Ship 24, finished and began testing Ship 25, and finished stacking Ship 26. Booster 9’s upgrades partially insulate it from the most disappointing possible scenario, retirement before flight. Even if Booster 7 fails during prelaunch testing or its launch attempt, revealing major design flaws, it’s possible that Booster 9’s changes have already addressed those weaknesses, allowing it to continue the flight test campaign. Ship 25’s fate is even more dependent on the fate of Ship 24.
In 2022, SpaceX ultimately produced two “full stacks,” with a third (S26/B10) likely to be completed – albeit with a less certain fate – in early 2023. Delivering five full stacks this year – meaning five ships and five boosters that make it far enough to be paired with another and fully stacked – would be a major improvement. However, as was the case in 2022, higher-volume production will remain a risky proposition until the designs of the vehicles being built have been fully qualified.
Given how long it’s taken SpaceX to partially qualify Super Heavy Booster 7, it appears that the largest source of uncertainty will remain for at least another month or two, if not well into mid-2023. Starship production has many uncertainties of its own, and all of them are complicated by not knowing if a Super Heavy booster will be available to launch each new ship in a timely fashion.
Ultimately, an entirely different constraint means that “five full stacks” may be all SpaceX needs to build for the next 12+ months. After a long and painful process, the FAA completed an environmental review of SpaceX’s Starbase, Texas facilities, permitting a maximum of five orbital (full-stack) Starship launches per year. Starship’s FAA orbital launch license, which has yet to be granted, could be even more restrictive. A second Starship pad under construction in Florida is unlikely to be cleared for orbital launches until Starship has proven itself to be moderately safe in South Texas, which could easily take 12-18 months, if not longer.
Combined with the fact that no super-heavy-lift rocket in history has flown five times in its first year of launch activity, a trend Starship seems unlikely to break, SpaceX could practically halt production entirely in 2023 and still have a full year of testing ahead of it while only using Ships 24-26 and Boosters 7, 9, and 10. Unintuitively, that bodes well for a busy 2023 of Starship test flights, as much of the hardware required for three flight tests is already close to completion or almost ready to begin preflight testing.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
