News
SpaceX’s Starship prototype proceeds at breakneck pace towards hop tests
Well illustrated by recent drone photos of SpaceX’s up-and-coming Boca Chica, Texas facilities, dozens of SpaceXers and local contractors have congregated at the company’s Starship prototype work site over the last few weeks, progressing it from an empty tent and a collection of parts to a handful of large assemblies for what appears to be the first full-scale Starship hopper.
Much like Falcon 9’s Grasshopper and F9R (Reusable) hop test articles, this ungainly Starship hopper – standing an impressive 9m (29.5 ft) wide and ~40m (131 ft) tall – appears all but guaranteed to become the first integrated BFR hardware to take flight, hopefully supporting a productive series of low-altitude hop tests from a roughly-prepared South Texas pad.
https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1079402956603248641
Since SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to provide a number of updates on and photos of the company’s dramatically refigured approach to BFR (now Starship and Super Heavy), employees and local contractors have been working almost around the clock to keep building the first full-scale, integrated Starship test article. To be dedicated to low-speed, low-altitude hop tests, Starhopper has been a spectacle and scandal from the start thanks to an unshakable visual aesthetic reminiscent of 1950s science fiction or an elaborate and slow-burning April Fool’s prank.
As of now, several dozen tweets and tweet replies from Musk in just the last week offer extensive support for the unorthodox new design – replacing carbon composites and an ablative heat shield for a new stainless steel alloy and liquid cooling – while also firmly indicating that the object taking shape in South Texas really is a Starship hopper that will eventually take to the skies on a pillar of Raptor engine exhaust. Those inaugural hop tests could apparently begin as early as March or April 2019. Given Musk’s statements, it seems that this highly unusual Starship hop test program simply cannot be judged accurately by its cover, at least not easily.
Even for SpaceX, building an aerospace-grade prototype of a massive orbital spaceship outdoors – adjacent to soggy Texan marshland and Gulf of Mexico sea spray, no less – is utterly and completely unexpected, especially in an industry where rocket hardware is routinely fabricated indoors, if not in medical-grade clean rooms. The most likely explanation here is that we are seeing something more akin to the aeroshell or cocoon of a Starship hopper, with a huge amount of thought and debate ultimately landing on this oddity as the fastest, most affordable, and most data-rich path forward for full-scale BFR testing.
-
- A welder can be seen attaching a patch layer over each panel layer gap on Dec. 30. (NASASpaceflight /u/bocachicagal)
-
- A lifting sling is seen here attached to Starhopper’s bottom half prior to its first lift and move. (NASASpaceflight /u/bocachicagal)
-
- Before the move… (NASASpaceflight /u/bocachicagal)
-
- And after the move. (NASASpaceflight /u/bocachicagal)
-
- The leftmost mockup was stitched together from NASASpaceflight user bocachicagal’s on-site photos by Thomas Lacroix. The TL;DR of this is that Starhopper appears to be a solid three-quarters the height of a full 2018 BFS. (SpaceX, NASASpaceflight, Thomas Lacroix)
In this speculative instance, the sensitive liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellant tanks – as well as Starhopper’s triple-Raptor thrust structure and spaghetti plumbing – would be fabricated in SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory or McGregor, TX test facilities before being shipped to Boca Chica for integration with the large structures already in work there. Those Raptors, propellant tanks, and a general program of fit-and-finish optimizations are next on the list of significant Starhopper-related events expected to occur within the next several months.
The latter task has already begun, showing up in the form of sheet metal refinement by way of essentially stitching together loose panel gaps between and within sheet-covered sections of Starhopper’s shiny silver nose. SpaceX workers also conducted the first move of the fully-integrated hopper’s base section, previously built and then sat atop a ready-made concrete stand that may or may not have come from a water tank design. While the move was slight, the base and nose sections are now roughly side-by-side along the apron of SpaceX’s temporary tent, where a third Starhopper hull segment is being built up.
2019 is going to be wild and March/April simply cannot come soon enough.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
