News
SpaceX’s recent Starship testing challenges don’t worry Elon Musk
In his latest burst of tweets, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he isn’t all that worried about a duo of recent Starship prototype failures and talked next steps for the next few Starships.
Aside from SpaceX’s South Texas rocket factory, Musk also touched on progress being made on the cutting-edge Raptor engine set to power Starships and their boosters, revealing a small production milestone in the process. The CEO says that SpaceX has already begun building its 26th Raptor engine, a sign that Raptors may actually be waiting on Starships in a turn of events. Back when SpaceX was busy testing its low-fidelity Starhopper testbed, the ship actually had to wait several months for the full-scale Raptor engine’s design to mature enough to support 15-30+ second hop tests.
Now, Musk’s Raptor SN26 reveal implies that SpaceX is slowly but surely ramping up production of the new engine back at its Hawthorne, California headquarters.
From August to December 2019, SpaceX completed one Raptor engine every ~17 days, on average. With Musk’s confirmation that SpaceX is currently building (or already testing) SN26, the company is completing an engine every 12-14 days – an overall improvement of 20-40%. In other words, SpaceX’s growing engine production capacity is almost perfectly positioned to support a fleet of suborbital Starship prototypes, which is about where the company’s Boca Chica, Texas factory is today.
Obviously, following two recent full-scale Starship prototype failures spaced barely a month apart, rocket production has a ways to go before it will need the volume of Raptor engines SpaceX appears to already be capable of producing. For the time being, three Raptor engines – having already completed production in Hawthorne and acceptance testing in McGregor, Texas – are quite literally sitting around and gathering dust as they wait for the first Starship prototype qualified to host them.
Once a Starship passes proof testing, SpaceX will be able to install either one or all three engines for an inaugural static fire test, following by a small Starhopper-class hop (no higher than 150m or 500 ft).
However, once SpaceX has explored the full range of testing available to suborbital Starship prototypes, things will change. Likely ending with the first one or several successful ‘skydiver-style’ rocket landing tests, SpaceX will finally be able to seriously think about its first orbital flight tests. To reach orbit and still be capable of returning to Earth and landing softly, Starship will need a Super Heavy booster – set to be the largest rocket booster ever developed by a large margin.
Although Musk has stated that early orbital flight tests will likely launch with far fewer engines, a single Super Heavy booster could eventually require 37 Raptor engines – a full 42% more engines than SpaceX has managed to build in the entire 15+ month history of full-scale Raptor production.
Thankfully, SpaceX’s engine production HQ likely has at least 6-12 months to ramp up production to support fully-outfitted Super Heavy boosters – let alone several. For the time being, each suborbital Starship only needs 3 sea level-optimized Raptor engines, although it’s possible that SpaceX will eventually perform suborbital tests with a full compliment of six engines – including three with much larger vacuum-optimized nozzles.
Ultimately, Musk explained that his lack of concern about recent Starship prototype failures – potentially including any anomalies that follow SN4’s test campaign – comes from the fact that he believes that producing Starships is a much more challenging and pressing concern. Indeed, if your factory can churn out functioning building-sized spacecraft for pennies on the dollar, losing a few during testing is little more than an annoyance. The first failed prototypes can thus be considered learning experiences, helping SpaceX improve designs and optimize the factory and production strategies. SpaceX does still need to prove that its existing approach really can build functioning rockets, but that should (in theory) come with enough trial and error.
Depending on how initial tests go with Starship Serial Number 4 (SN4), likely days away from wrapping up production, Musk says that the first few suborbital Starship tests will likely involve short, low-velocity hops. Those flights will be slow enough that the ship (or ships) wont require aerodynamic control surfaces to complete them, instead relying entirely on smaller thrusters and the thrust vector control (TVC) provided by their three main Raptor engines.
If Starship SN4 testing – including wet dress rehearsals, Raptor static fires, and short hops – goes perfectly, Musk says that Starship SN5 could be the first new ship to have fully-functional flaps installed. If things don’t go quite as well, that milestone could shift to Starship SN6, while SN7 and beyond are obviously on the table in the event of even less forgiving SN4/SN5 testing scenarios. For now, Starship SN4 could be ready to move to the launch pad and kick off a series of critical proof tests a handful of days from now.
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
