News
SpaceX Starship rolls to Texas launch pad ahead of next big test campaign
SpaceX’s first flightworthy Starship prototype has rolled to its South Texas launch pad just hours after it was welded together and is now preparing for several critical tests it must pass before it can be deemed ready for liftoff.
Fabricated and assembled with incredible speed at SpaceX’s growing Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory and test facilities, the vehicle SpaceX moved to the launch pad earlier today (Feb 25) is meant to become the first full-scale Starship prototype to take flight. Following in the footsteps of the Starship Mk1 prototype, deemed too shoddy to launch and pressurized to destruction in November 2019, the first serial build (SN01) of an improved line of Starship prototypes appears to have taken less than a month to go from first weld to the launch pad.
CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter earlier today to confirm the Starship SN01 tank section’s move to the launch pad, further noting that the tank assembly is now preparing for Raptor engine installation ahead of a static fire test. According to NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX wants to complete that static fire and launch Starship SN01 as early as next month – a seemingly improbable target that just got much more likely with the rocket’s tank section already at the launch pad. Most importantly, however, the speed with which SpaceX has been able to assemble and prepare Starship SN01 suggests that even if things go wrong or plans change, another completed prototype could be ready to head to the pad just a few weeks from now.
On February 25th, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posted a screenshot taken from a livestream created by SPadre earlier that day, noting that Starship will soon have engines installed in preparation for a critical static fire test.
Under the cover of an incredibly thick fog bank, Starship SN01 was lifted onto a Roll Lift transporter and carefully moved from its factory facilities to SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch pad at 4:30 am PST. Around 7:30 am PST, the giant rocket tank was lifted onto the pad’s Starship mount and technicians have been working to connect SN01 to the ground systems ever since.
Built out of stainless steel, Starship SN01’s tank section – referring to the combined liquid oxygen tank, liquid methane tank, and engine section – stands about 30m (100 ft) tall and likely weighs at least 30-45 metric tons (~70,000-100,000 lb) as it stands. While SN01 is clearly missing its pointed nose section (‘nosecone’) and flaps, among other parts, its tank section has been moved to the launch pad to perform tests that don’t involve the ship’s aerodynamic properties.
Starship Mk1 – SpaceX’s first attempt at a full-scale prototype – was fabricated and stacked piece by piece over the course of nine months before its tank section – looking almost identical to SN01 – first rolled to SpaceX’s launch pad on October 30th, 2019. Three weeks later, it was intentionally pressurized until it popped after engineers concluded that its production quality was too low for a flight test attempt to be worth the effort. On the other hand, the first of Starship SN01’s steel rings was definitively completed in the last week of January 2020, quite possibly just four weeks before the completed tank section was rolled to the same launch pad.
With that kind of speed, it’s no surprise that Musk says SpaceX will start stacking Starship SN02’s tank section this week. Intriguingly, Musk also stated that Starship SN02 would have three Raptors installed, avoiding the original question’s focus (SN01). As such, it appears that Starship SN01 may only have one Raptor installed for a static fire test and would be unlikely to ever fly if that were the case. It’s possible that after two highly successful (and explosive) pressure tests of smaller Starship test tanks that were completed last month, SpaceX still wants to perform a similar pressure test with a fully-integrated, full-scale Starship tank section to confirm that the smaller tank results carry over.
Whether SN01 is still destined for flight, it’s safe to say that Starship SN01 tank testing could begin in a matter of days — SpaceX currently has early-morning roadblocks indicative of such testing scheduled from February 29th to March 2nd. SpaceX is likely to kick off by filling SN01 with water to check its tanks for leaks, followed by liquid nitrogen – chemically neutral but still incredibly cold. After that, SN01 would likely graduate to Raptor engine installation and a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with liquid oxygen and methane before moving on to a static fire attempt, if all goes well.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
