News
SpaceX schedules Starship’s first triple-Raptor static fire test
A photo posted by CEO Elon Musk confirms that SpaceX has successfully installed three functional Raptors on Starship SN8 just hours before road closure notices revealed the company’s first triple-engine static fire schedule.
Technically, it’s incorrect to say that Starship serial number 8 (SN8) is the first prototype to receive three Raptor engines. Back in late-September 2019, in the lead-up to Musk’s promised Starship update event, the company installed three Raptors on the first full-scale prototype, known as Starship Mk1. The engines were only installed as an apparent fit test or even a photo opportunity, however – evidenced by the fact that they weren’t actually plumbed to the Starship’s propellant tanks.
Even then, in September 2019, Starship Mk1 was far from ready to make use of Raptor engines and was more than a month away from attempting its first pressure and cryogenic proof tests – tests it quickly failed. As such, Starship SN8 – having more or less successfully passed its ‘cryo proof’ by October 9th – is undoubtedly the first ship to have a shot at igniting multiple Raptor engines at once.
Curiously, SpaceX remained quiet for several days after Starship SN8 passed its first big test. Whereas with past Starship prototypes SpaceX has often filed test plans (appearing in the form of road closures) even before the current phase of testing is complete, the company waited until Tuesday, October 14th to file closure notices for “SN8 static fire” testing.
Same as Starships SN4, SN5, and SN6, all of which successfully graduated from cryo proof to static fire testing (and even flight tests for the latter two), SpaceX began Starship SN8’s test campaign with a cryo proof. It took three days and at least as many attempts but SN8 ultimately “passed cryo proof” according to Elon Musk, likely meaning that the ship reached sustained pressures of 7.5 bar (~110 psi) or more.
Cryo proof complete, SpaceX installed Starship SN8’s engines – the first time multiple Raptors have been fully integrated with a rocket or test stand – in preparation for another Raptor first: multi-engine static fires. While modern computation fluid dynamics (CFD) and modeling mean that the great unknowns of rocket propulsion are rarely as opaque as they used to be, the first test of multiple powerful engines in close proximity is still a guaranteed recipe for surprises.
Thanks to expertise hard-won from nearly 100 Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, SpaceX is likely the world’s foremost expert in the challenges and dynamics of the proximity operation of more than two rocket engines. At the same time, though, Raptor is a dramatically different engine than Merlin 1D and while Starship will only have six engines at most, those six engines will produce thrust equivalent to almost two entire Falcon 9 boosters.
In other words, even with a (relatively) simple three-Raptor static fire, SpaceX will be treading new ground and will almost certainly end up learning one or several things about Raptor’s design and operation. More likely than not, SpaceX will begin Starship SN8’s static fire test campaign with a wet dress rehearsal (like a cryo proof but with real liquid methane and oxygen propellant) and transition into a Raptor spin prime (turbopump spin-up) or preburner test (a turbopump spin-up but with partial combustion) if the WDR goes smoothly. If all three Raptor engines appear healthy, SpaceX may recycle and attempt the first static fire just an hour or two later.
Starship SN8’s triple-Raptor static fire test window opened at 9pm CDT on October 14th and closes at 6am on the 15th, with an identical 9pm-6am backup on the 15th and another window from 8am to 4:30pm on the 16th. LabPadre (below) will continue to offer 24/7 views of Starship, including any static fire testing, while NASASpaceflight.com will likely provide live coverage once testing begins in earnest.
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
