News
SpaceX files Starship flight debut paperwork, preps for launch pad upgrades
On September 9th, the first signs of SpaceX planning for Starship Mk1’s South Texas launch debut appeared in the form of FCC applications, requesting permission to communicate with the rocket prototype during its first flight.
Simultaneously, word broke on September 5th – via a Business Insider report – that SpaceX is effectively set to receive FAA permission to upgrade its South Texas launch facilities for Starship. All things considered, it appears that most – if not all – the stars have begun to align for SpaceX’s inaugural Starship launch, said by CEO Elon Musk to be scheduled for no earlier than October 2019.
The application confirms several details about Starship Mk1’s debut, revealing that SpaceX will kick off the test campaign with a running jump from Starhopper’s 150m (500 ft) flight-test hand-off. The company is targeting an altitude of ~20 km (12.5 mi) – more than two magnitudes higher than its predecessor’s peak – and plans to land the spacecraft just a hundred or so feet from its launch site, on the same landing pad used by Starhopper.
SpaceX teams continue to work around the clock to ready Starship Mk1 for its ambitious flight debut. A new ring segment was stacked on top of the vehicle’s tank section several days ago, while locals also spotted the delivery of one or two new legs/fins, built out of riveted steel. SpaceX’s Boca Chica team continues to struggle to attach Starship’s tip to the rest of its curved nose section, having recently separated the segments for the first time in months.
Preliminary welding of Starship Mk1’s upper (and final) tank dome appears to be complete and technicians are working to integrate the spacecraft’s internal hardware before it can be installed. Meanwhile, a range of new concrete pads have been set and are being outfitted with additional production hardware, likely paving the way for simultaneously Starship-Starship or Starship-Super Heavy builds in the near future.
Documents acquired and published on September 5th by Business Insider reporter Dave Mosher touched on the assembly facility’s expansion and provided an excellent overview of SpaceX’s planned upgrades to its Starship launch pad. Retasked from original plans (and approvals) for an additional Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy launch site, the documents confirmed that the FAA has reevaluated its 2014 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is effectively ready to re-permit SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities in light of its new purpose.
About as classically SpaceX as it gets, the company has already dramatically altered plans and timelines since the FAA even began to reevaluate its launch pad EIS. Discussed as Phases 1-3, SpaceX – barely two months after the FAA’s updated EIS statement – appears to have already completed Phases 1 and 2 (wet dress rehearsals, static fires, and small hops) and doesn’t have public plans for “medium hops” of “30 cm…up to 3 km”. The FAA statement – signed in May 2019 – says that the agency did not have the information necessary to permit Phase 3, involving “engine ignition and thrust to lift the Starship to 100 km, flip the Starship at high altitude, and conduct a reentry and landing.“
This article’s feature photo shows SpaceX’s late-2018/early-2019 imagining of launch site upgrades reportedly needed to support Phase 2 testing. Although extremely similar to what SpaceX has already built in South Texas, some significant changes are definitely present, and it looks like SpaceX has a busy 4-8 weeks of work ahead to complete necessary modifications, including expanded propellant storage, two large walls, and possible underground routing of critical infrastructure.
Ultimately, significant work remains for SpaceX to receive both FAA’s EIS go-ahead and experimental launch permits for Starship Mk1’s first flight. Based on the ~3 weeks it took the FAA to simply extend Starhopper’s existing 25m hop permit to 200m (eventually cut to 150m), it could be quite the uphill battle to jump to a 20 km flight test. For the time being, SpaceX hopes to conduct Starship’s 20-km flight debut as early as October 13th, in line with Musk’s ambitious “October” target.
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
