News
SpaceX begins installing ‘Mechazilla’ arms designed to catch Starship rockets
After a busy few weeks spent attaching Mechazilla’s two rocket-catching arms to a carriage-like backbone, SpaceX has begun the process of installing the integrated structure on Starbase’s ~450 ft (~135m) tall Starship ‘launch tower’.
Once complete, SpaceX will have created a first-of-its-kind launch tower designed to stack and manipulate Starships and Super Heavy boosters in far worse conditions than cranes can tolerate and catch both rocket stages out of mid-air. Referred to internally as ‘chopsticks,’ the giant pair of steel arms will join a third ‘quick disconnect’ (QD) arm tasked with stabilizing Super Heavy during Starship installation and feeding the reusable upper stage power, comms links, and some 1200 tons (~2.65M lb) of propellant.
Together, they will enable SpaceX to attempt Starship’s first orbital test flights and, perhaps one day, help the next-generation rocket launch in almost any weather and achieve unprecedentedly rapid reusability. But first, SpaceX needs to finish installing and rigging the massive structure.
Beginning on August 29th after less than three months of assembly, SpaceX installed Starship’s QD arm on the launch tower. About a month later, the QD arm was mostly finished off with the installation of a claw-like grabber meant to stabilize Super Heavy and is now only missing its namesake quick-disconnect (an actuating device that will connect Starship to the pad and rapidly disconnect at liftoff). Assembly of the last three major components of Mechazilla – a carriage-like structure and two giant arms – began in July and, much like the tower’s QD arm, wrapped up about three months later.
On October 6th, SpaceX began combining those three main parts by flipping the carriage – a bit like a spine and ribcage with ‘skates’ that attach to rails on the launch tower’s legs – vertical and staging it on a temporary support structure. Both ‘chopsticks’ were then flipped into the correct orientation and moved into position with separate cranes for installation on the carriage/backbone. From start to finish, that process took around 9-10 days and culminated with the installation of two giant cylindrical pins with built-in bearings on October 14th and 15th. By the 17th, both cranes had detached from the assembled Mechazilla arms and carriage were, leaving it precisely balanced against the support structure and more or less freestanding.
Just a few days later, after a last-second attempt on October 19th was called off as night fell, SpaceX tried again on the 20th and completed the first step of installing Mechazilla’s catch arms on the launch tower without apparent issue. Likely weighing several hundred tons, Starbase’s largest crane lifted the massive structure up and over an adjacent launch mount and then carefully inched it closer to the tower. Prior to the lift, SpaceX technicians staged 12 ‘skates’ on three of the tower’s four legs – two upper and two lower skates per leg.
Here's one with the QD arm back. If QD engaged, chopsticks can't get past. Elon said only need for "ship mate". Chopstick sequence:
1. Lift SH onto OLM
2. Rise, swing to side, lower, grasp SS
3. Rise above SH
4. Deploy QD arm and claw
5. Lower SS onto SH
6. At launch, open wide! pic.twitter.com/iRRfXQ5uEn— LunarCaveman (@LunarCaveman) October 1, 2021
Once the carriage was in the right position, workers were able to wrap its upper arms around the tower and began connecting the carriage to those skates with several more large pins. It’s unclear how much progress was made in the hours after the lift but it appears that the carriage has been attached to maybe four or five of six upper skates. Work continued well after nightfall, meaning that it will likely only take a few days to complete all 12 connections. However, even after all skates are installed, the carriage, arms, and skates will still be hanging by crane or winch.
To truly install the structure on the tower, SpaceX will have to finish installing and rigging thousands of feet of steel cable that – via a complex system of pulleys – will connect to powered ‘drawworks’ that will support the carriage and catch arms and lift the assembly up and down the tower like an elevator car. The catch arms and carriage will also need to be mated with a giant ‘cable carrier’ (already staged on the tower) that will connect the structure to ground and control systems.
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
