News
SpaceX’s Starship rocket just took a big leap towards orbit with latest test success
A full-scale Starship rocket has passed a critical test for the first time ever, strongly suggesting that the next-generation launch vehicle could be much closer to orbital readiness than most would imagine.
To be clear, a huge amount of work remains before Starship can be deemed anywhere close to its first orbital flight tests, not the least of which is the fabrication and assembly of the first massive Super Heavy booster(s). However, after Starship SN4’s latest successful May 9th test, it’s hard to see any apparent showstoppers that can’t be handled with a combination of fairly routine testing and iterative progress, as well as time and money. There is certainly room for improvement throughout the program but SpaceX has effectively demonstrated that the biggest practical concerns about its approach to Starship are moot.
Captured live on May 9th and 10th by local resident and photographer Mary (bocachicagal) with the help of NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX worked for about two days to reconfigure its fourth full-scale Starship prototype after two successful Raptor engine static fires and prepare it for a different kind of test. That work mainly involved removing said Raptor and replacing it with a hydraulic ram stand used to simulate the thrust of 1-3 engines without actually needing to perform a static fire test, further allowing SpaceX to simulate much longer engine operations than its spartan test pad could survive. Around 9pm CDT on May 9th (02:00 UTC, May 10), Starship SN4’s latest trial began.
Known as a cryogenic pressure and load test, it differed from a prior “cryo proof test” completed on April 26th, in which Starship was fully loaded with liquid nitrogen (more than twice as cold as dry ice), pressurized to a bit less than 5 bar (~70 psi), and stressed with hydraulic rams. About a week later, after installing a Raptor engine on a full-scale Starship prototype for the first time ever, Starship SN4 fired up said engine on May 5th – another historic first for the next-generation launch vehicle. 30 hours later, SpaceX performed another wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with liquid methane and oxygen and fired up Starship’s Raptor engine again.
After about 48 hours of reconfiguration, SpaceX moved on to a much more serious cryogenic test. As noted by CEO Elon Musk, the 4.9 bar the rocket previously reached was accepted as enough to perform a Raptor static fire test and possibly enough for a low-stress, low-altitude flight test to ~150m (500 ft). For orbital flight, however, Starship needs to withstand a minimum of 6 bar (~90 psi), while 8.5 bar (125 psi) is preferable to give the rocket the 1.4x safety factor optimal for human spaceflight.
This time, SpaceX – having successfully gathered data from two static fire tests and several wet dress rehearsals – was ready to risk Starship SN4 and pressurized it all the way to 7.5 bar (~110 psi). While ~12% shy of minimum human spaceflight standards, Starship SN4 successfully reached and maintained 7.5 bar while the ship stressed with hydraulic rams to simulate the thrust of three Raptor engines, all of which it survived fully intact. What 7.5 bar does offer, however, is a 1.25x safety factor – on the higher end of aerospace industry standards for uncrewed orbital spaceflight (i.e. cargo/satellite launches).
Ready for orbit?
Technically, this means that – pending much additional testing and verification with different serial prototypes and (likely) higher pressures – Starship’s stainless steel structure is effectively qualified for uncrewed orbital launches. Of course, reality is much more complex. To actually perform and survive orbital flights, SpaceX will first need to build and similarly qualify the first Super Heavy boosters and ensure that those unprecedentedly large rockets can survive and sustain ~20-30 Raptor engines firing simultaneously.
Aside from Super Heavy, it’s unknown if SpaceX has begun testing Raptor engines at the durations they will need to burn to booster Starships into orbit (TBD; likely 5-10 minutes of continuous operation). Along those lines, SpaceX also needs to build, test, and qualify Raptor’s vacuum-optimized sibling to complement the sea level version’s smaller, less-efficient nozzle. Still, Musk has already revealed that RaptorVac could be a matter of weeks from its first static fire and rocket engine development – while incredibly challenging – is more of a known quantity for SpaceX.
Perhaps the most important unknown is whether SpaceX’s recent May 2020 WDRs and static fires have used autogenous pressurization, a more efficient method of pressurizing rockets by using hot gas generated by their own engines. It’s extremely likely that SpaceX has been autogenously pressurizing Starship SN4 for its recent tests, but if that weren’t the case, it would be a big source of schedule uncertainty without significant redesign work.
Ultimately, SpaceX appears to have proven that orbital-class rockets can be built cheaply out of commodified steel in extraordinarily spartan production facilities. Many, many challenges remain but the biggest uncertainty and hurdle facing SpaceX’s Starship program and ambitions is well on its way to being fully put to rest.
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
