News
SpaceX’s Starship factory is churning out steel rockets faster than ever
SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory is churning out steel rocket hardware faster than ever before according to photos of yet another prototype already in the works.
At the same time as SpaceX works around the clock to test SN4 and prepare the ship for what will be the first flight of a full-scale Starship prototype, the company is building not one; not two; but three additional prototypes. A confirmation that a third Starship was being simultaneously manufactured in South Texas came on May 25th when local Boca Chica resident and observer Mary (bocachicagal) captured a photo of a pair of stacked steel rings rather conspicuously labeled “SN7”.
While it’s possible that “SN7” is just a coincidence, it’s far more likely that it refers to Starship serial number 7 (SN7), set to be the seventh full-scale prototype built by SpaceX. The apparent start of SN7’s steel ring assembly process some two weeks ago also suggests that no less than several other rings are likely being mated in one or more of SpaceX’s three main manufacturing tents or a much taller windbreak structure. In fact, SpaceX is building Starship prototypes so quickly that the company is actively assembling a second launch mount, suggesting that two Starships could soon be tested more or less simultaneously without stepping on each other’s steel toes.
The most impressive aspect of SN7’s appearance, however, is the fact that SpaceX is already in the late stages of stacking Starship SN5 and begun preparing to stack Starship SN6 directly beside it just a few days ago. Based on labels attached to the side of a new steel nosecone section rolled out of SpaceX’s tent factory a few days ago, Starship SN5 will likely become the first full-scale Starship to reach its full height in a permanent, functional fashion. Back in October 2019, SpaceX did technically stack Starship Mk1 to its full height for a few weeks, but the ship’s nose section was never permanently attached and really only served as a pathfinder and full-scale mockup.
Starship Mk1 ultimately failed prematurely during its first major cryogenic pressure test in November 2019, bursting well before it reached the tank pressures needed for low-velocity hop tests (let alone orbital flight). In the sixth months since, SpaceX refocused its resources and spent much of the time dramatically upgrading its South Texas Starship production facilities and methods. In a rapid-fire series of tests of custom-built Starship tanks, SpaceX quickly proved that those improved methods could produce steel tanks more than capable of surviving pressures of ~8.5 bar (~125 psi) and beyond.
More recently, Starship SN4 – a full-scale prototype with two propellant tanks and three tank domes – passed a ~7.5 bar (~110 psi) cryogenic pressure test with flying colors, just shy of fully validating the smaller tank tests that made it possible. According to CEO Elon Musk, ~8.5 bar is enough to perform orbital launches with the ~40% safety margin preferred for human spaceflight, while 7.5 bar meets the minimum needed for Starship to perform uncrewed orbital launches with a ~25% safety margin.
In other words, SpaceX isn’t simply churning out low-fidelity prototypes – the ships that are being mass-produced are of a high enough quality to be qualified for orbital-class launches. Of course, the physical structure of Starship is just one of many technologies that need to work in harmony for successful orbital flights, many of which need to pass their own challenging tests to be declared ready for launch, but it’s still undeniably impressive that SpaceX is already building complete Starship fuselages in a matter of weeks.
In fact, given that Starship SN4 could perform the first hop test and that SN5 could be assigned to the first high-altitude (3-20+ km) flight tests, there is definitely a chance, however minimal, that Starship SN6 or SN7 could eventually be upgraded for the system’s inaugural orbital launch attempt. Regardless, it’s safe to say that the next several weeks are going to be jam-packed with numerous Starship production and test 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
