News
SpaceX’s high-altitude Starship launch debut unlikely before Crew-1
Update: SpaceX canceled its November 5th and 6th Starship SN8 static fire test windows on Thursday, delaying the next Starship test window to November 9th unless additional testing is scheduled on the 7th and 8th.
As previously discussed, SpaceX requested three road closures for “Starship SN8 Static Fire and 15KM Flight” attempts on November 9th, 10th, and 11th on Wednesday. With recent cancellations, NASASpaceflight reporter Michael Baylor says that the odds that Starship SN8 will be ready to fly before SpaceX’s Crew-1 operational NASA astronaut launch debut (NET November 14th) are now minuscule, further indicating that each of the three upcoming test windows will be dedicated to one or more Raptor static fires.
Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX continues to prepare Starship for its most ambitious, challenging, and risky test yet.
In the form of road closure filings, SpaceX has effectively announced the first possible dates for Starship’s high-altitude launch debut, a high-risk test that CEO Elon Musk recently made clear could fail.
Per road closures published on SpaceX’s dedicated Cameron County, Texas page, Starship serial number 8 (SN8) could apparently be ready for its historic launch debut as soon as November 9th in a 12-hour window that opens at 9am CST (15:00 UTC). Identical 9am-9pm windows on November 10th and 11th will serve as backups in the event of one or several launch aborts or delays – fairly likely for a prototype as complex as Starship SN8.
However, several tests stand between SN8 and flight-readiness, further increasing the odds of delays as SpaceX continues to work out the kinks in what amounts to the first fully-assembly, functional Starship.
Musk has already stated that Starship SN8 will need to complete another Raptor static fire test – potentially with one, two, or three engines – before SpaceX will consider the rocket ready for its flight debut. Over the last few days, NASASpaceflight.com reporter Michael Baylor has noted on livestreams that multiple more static fire tests are actually in order before SpaceX will attempt to launch Starship SN8. It’s currently unclear what the purpose of those additional static fire tests is, given that SN8 has already completed a triple-engine Raptor static fire.
In the two weeks since that milestone, however, SpaceX did take a major step forward, mating Starship SN8’s nose section to create what is effectively the first full-scale, functional prototype. Aside from two smaller forward flaps and attitude control system (ACS) cold gas thrusters, that nose section also contains a small secondary liquid oxygen tank known as a header tank – meant to store a small amount of highly pressurized propellant to be used during Raptor reentry and landing burns. Several months back, Musk revealed that Starship SN4 completed a static fire while only feeding on fuel (liquid methane) stored in the rocket’s methane header tank, making it reasonable to assume that SpaceX wants to repeat a similar test with SN8 while using both fuel and oxidizer header tanks.
For Starship SN8, those header tanks will be an irreplaceable necessity during the rocket’s first attempted launch, free-fall, flip maneuver, and landing. In a clear sign of preparation for a header-tank-only static fire test, SpaceX appeared to successfully complete a cryogenic proof of Starship SN8’s newly-installed nose section and nose (LOx) header tank on November 3rd, verifying that liquid nitrogen – standing in for LOx – can be pumped more than 50 meters (~165 ft) from Starship’s launch mount to the tip of its nose to load said tank.
SpaceX has one more “SN8 nose cone cryo proof” test window scheduled from 8am to 5pm CST Thursday, November 5th that could be used for one or more of those expected static fire tests. Otherwise, SpaceX’s Starship SN18 15 km (~50,000 ft) launch closures were technically filed for an “SN8 Static Fire and 15 KM Flight,” allowing SpaceX to perform one or several static fires before attempting to launch. All things considered, the odds that Starship SN8 will launch on time between November 9th and 11th are probably less than 50:50, but there is definitely a chance.
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
