News
A SpaceX Starship rocket could take to the sky for the first time later this week
SpaceX has scrubbed its latest Starship static fire test for the third time since Friday but if another attempt succeeds within the next few days, a full-scale Starship prototype could lift off for the first time later this week.
SpaceX has attempted to perform a Starship static fire every day for the last three days without any luck, foiled by what must be mild technical issues and some extreme South Texas weather. That static fire – set to be Starship serial number 4’s (SN4) third – is required because SpaceX chose to replace the rocket’s installed Raptor engine (SN18) around 10 days ago after completing two successful tests on May 4th and 5th. Installed a few days after SN18 was removed, Starship and Raptor SN20 must now perform their own integrated static fire to ensure the complex systems are working properly.
Since SN4’s last test, SpaceX teams have been swarming the Starship prototype day and night, installing new COPVs (composite overwrapped pressure vessels; used to store high-pressure gas), new plumbing, and more. The specific purposes of all those in-situ changes can only be speculated at but what is clear is that SpaceX is preparing Starship SN4 for the first attempted flight test of a full-scale prototype, following in the footsteps of Starhopper’s bizarre but successful July and August 2019 hops. As SN4’s third Raptor static fire has slipped, though, so has that flight test. While the FAA has yet to officially publish a license for the 150m (~500 ft) Starship hop, NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) filed recently suggest that that license and hop could come any day now.
Most recently, a NOTAM was filed on May 18th for what is likely Starship’s 150m hop test on Thursday, May 21st. Filed before SN4’s May 18th static fire test was aborted twice, that proposed May 21st hop test will almost certainly be delayed at least as long as the static fire that needs to precede it and is also dependent upon the FAA officially licensing the flight. The fact that NOTAMs are being filed for that flight strongly suggests that SpaceX and the FAA or in the late stages of hammering out a license, a process that can often involve a great deal of back-and-forth and compromise for experimental rocket launches.
Regardless, if or when Starship SN4 finally manages to fire up its new Raptor engine, it could be just a matter of days after that SpaceX attempts the first true Starship flight test. If everything goes according to plan, the ~30m (~100 ft) tall stainless steel rocket will lift off under the power of a single asymmetrically installed Raptor engine, capable of producing up to 200 metric tons (~450,000 lbf) of thrust with cryogenic liquid methane and oxygen propellant.
After lifting off from its ad-hoc South Texas launch mount, Starship SN4 will attempt to reach a peak altitude of 150m (~500 ft) and descend back down for a soft landing on an adjacent concrete pad, just like Starhopper did around nine months ago. A lot could go wrong: aside from using steel more than three times thinner than Starhopper’s, Starship SN4 will also be debuting an entirely new kind of landing leg, will be flying with asymmetric thrust, and will likely be using autogenous pressurization — all new challenges for SpaceX.
Nevertheless, there are also reasons for confidence. SpaceX has already successfully pressurized Starship SN4 all the way to 7.5 bar (~110 psi, sufficient for uncrewed orbital flight), performed multiple wet dress rehearsals and two Raptor static fire tests, and even tested what appears to be a new kind of cold gas thruster needed for roll control. Most importantly, even if Starship SN4 is destroyed during its next static fire or inaugural flight attempt, Starship SN5 is nearly at the same stage of completion and should be ready to take the reins almost immediately after the potential demise of its predecessor. With Crew Dragon’s inaugural NASA astronaut launch scheduled on May 27th, the rest of the month is set to be quite the event.
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
