News
SpaceX begins assembling first Starship Super Heavy booster in South Texas
SpaceX has taken the first unequivocal step towards orbital Starship launches, kicking off assembly of the first Super Heavy booster (first stage) – a necessity for recoverable spaceship missions to Earth orbit and beyond.
Although SpaceX could technically get away with building much smaller booster prototypes to support Starship’s initial orbital test flights, perhaps going as far as simply modifying Starship’s proven tank design, rocketry really doesn’t lend itself to modularity. Be it out of confidence or necessity, SpaceX appears to be moving directly from Starship prototype development to full-scale Super Heavy booster production and testing.
The first conveniently labeled Super Heavy booster rings were spotted around September 22nd. In the six or so weeks since then, SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas factory has relentlessly churned out at least as many sections of stacked booster rings – now strewn about the ever-growing campus. No less than seven labeled Super Heavy ring sections have been spotted since the first, equating to fewer than 25 steel rings of the estimated 38-40 needed to complete each booster.
Relying on a tank design almost identical to hardware flight-proven on two separate Starship prototypes, SpaceX is able to use the exact same manufacturing infrastructure for the vast majority of Starship and Super Heavy. In fact, in a flip of the usual relationship, the next-generation rocket’s booster will most likely be far simpler than the upper stage – nominally the largest reusable spacecraft and upper stage ever attempted.
Without the need for a tiled heat shield, a conical nose section, aerodynamic control surfaces (beyond Falcon-style grid fins), or even (perhaps) internal header tanks, the only major challenge unique to Super Heavy is the development of an engine section capable of supporting and feeding as many as 28 Raptor engines. In other words, as long as the basics of Starship are successful and SpaceX is able to design a reliable 28-Raptor thrust structure and associated plumbing, Super Heavy may actually be a much easier problem to solve.
Theory aside, Starship and Super Heavy will unequivocally be the largest spacecraft, upper stage, and rocket booster ever built regardless of their success. While CEO Elon Musk recently stated that a Super Heavy booster could perform hop tests with just two Raptor engines, if necessary, the rocket is ultimately expected to have 20 high-thrust Raptors with minimal throttle capability and an inner ring of eight throttleable, gimballing engines for precision maneuvers.
With all 28 engines operating at full thrust, that particular Super Heavy design would produce an immense 6600 metric tons (14.5 million lbf) of thrust at liftoff – approximately twice the thrust of Saturn V and Soviet N-1 rockets and more than three times the thrust of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy. Measuring ~70m (~230 ft) tall, Super Heavy would weigh at least 3500 metric tons (7.7 million lb) fully loaded with liquid oxygen and methane propellant and – on its own – stand as tall or taller than Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and any other operational rocket on Earth.
Now effectively inaugurated with the first Super Heavy booster (“BN1,” according to SpaceX) hardware, the ~83m (~270 ft) tall high bay will likely be in a near-constant state of activity as teams work to stack and weld the massive steel rocket. Essential to support Starship’s first recoverable orbital launch attempts, it remains to be seen how exactly SpaceX will put the first completed Super Heavy through its paces and what the first booster-supported Starship launches will look like. Regardless, barring major surprises during assembly, Super Heavy booster #1 (BN1) could be more or less complete just a month or two 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
