News
SpaceX Starship factory overflowing with new and flight-proven rockets
After a relatively relaxed period of production and testing, SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory is practically overflowing with new and flight-proven ships as the company prepares for the rocket’s next major tests.
Even before the one-off Starship Mk1 prototype failed a pressure test late last year, SpaceX was in the process of upgrading its Boca Chica production facilities and refining the ship’s design and manufacturing processes. Starship SN1, the first prototype built as part of that upgrade, rolled to the launch pad on February 25th, 2020, followed by Starship SN2 (turned into a test tank) just a week or so later. Starship SN3 and SN4 would both follow in early and late April, ultimately ending with the latter prototype’s spectacularly violent demise in late May.
Over the remaining three or so months, the pace of testing has slowed a bit as SpaceX’s Starship development program enters the full-scale flight testing phase. Starship SN5 began testing on July 1st, followed by SN6 around six weeks later. Both prototypes successfully hopped just 30 days apart. Now, although SpaceX still plans to hop SN5 a second time and may hop SN6 twice, too, the Starship program’s focus has shifted to high-altitude, high-velocity flight tests and the adoption of a new steel alloy.
Presumably in anticipation of a learning curve as that new steel alloy begins to be tested at full-scale for the first times, SpaceX is churning out Starship prototypes at an unprecedented pace. Intriguingly, that production ramp is hinged upon the assumption that a 304L-class steel alloy (compared to the 301 stainless steel used to build SN1 through SN6) will be as good or better than 301 steel in every significant way.
Currently, that assumption isn’t entirely baseless but is still built upon the success of Starship SN7, SpaceX’s first 304L test tank. SpaceX never confirmed its results but it’s believed that that test tank – more of a material demonstrator than an actual structural Starship prototype – surpassed all previous pressure records before it burst in June.
Given that SN7 performed quite well, it’s at least a bit less surprising that SpaceX is hinging months of work and at least four full-scale Starship prototypes on an otherwise unproven steel alloy. The next big test for 304L Starships will be a second test tank known as SN7.1. Rolled to the test site on September 7th, essentially as soon as Starship SN6 was safed and returned to the factory after its hop debut, SN7.1 is significantly more complex than its sibling and will test a ~304L Raptor mount (thrust puck) and skirt section. The forces and general conditions those new parts will be subjected to are substantially different than most of what SN7 was subjected to, meaning that there is a chance that 304L steel is less optimal in different scenarios.
With any luck, SN7.1’s test campaign – scheduled to begin as early as 9pm CDT (UTC-5), September 10th (today) – will be a flawless success, proving that SpaceX’s new steel alloy is universally superior to 301 for Starship-related applications. If that’s the case, Starship SN8 – the first full new-alloy prototype – will likely be fully outfitted with a nosecone and header tanks before beginning acceptance testing.
Eventually, if SN7.1 aces its tests and SN8 performs well during preflight preparations, Starship SN8 could become the first prototype to launch with a full nose, header tanks, and flaps, as well as the first to fly with three Raptor engines. If Starship SN8 fails for any reason or is damaged during testing, though, it appears that SpaceX will have no shortage of ships built out of the same new steel alloy to choose from.
In just the last ten days, labeled parts and rings for Starships SN9, SN10, and SN11 have all been spotted, implying that SpaceX is concurrently building at least four new Starships. Notably, both Starships SN9 and SN11 already appear to have some of the studs needed for heat shield tile installation affixed to sections of their steel hulls. Based on the sheer number of steel ring stacks spotted over the last week, it’s also safe to assume that SN9’s tank section (and possibly SN10’s, too) is largely prefabricated.
Assuming two of the in-work nosecones are ultimately meant for flight, SpaceX may already have enough hardware on hand to fully assemble two Starships (presumably SN8 and SN9) – including nosecones, header tanks, nose rings, and flaps. It’s safe to say that if SN7.1 achieves its goals, preparations for the first triple Raptor hop, 20 km (~12 mi) test flight, and skydiver-style landing attempt could come together incredibly quickly.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
