News
SpaceX installs second Starship Mk1 canard ahead of transport to launch pad
SpaceX has begun to install Starship Mk1’s second of two forward ‘canards’, aerodynamic flaps the rocket prototype will soon use to attempt the first radical skydiver-style landing. SpaceX technicians are likely working to fully outfit the rocket before transporting its nose section to the launch pad, where it can be mated to Starship Mk1’s lower tank and engine section.
This second canard installation follows just a few days after SpaceX technicians began installing the first fin, a process that took a fair bit longer than usual as a result of new hardware integrated with the control surfaces this time around. Discussed earlier today, those large mechanism are likely the substantial actuators Starship will need to rapidly tweak its trajectory while falling through the atmosphere.
“Barely three weeks after the rocket’s forward flaps (canards) were removed, SpaceX technicians began the reinstallation process with one major visible difference: a massive motorcycle-sized actuator. The appearance of that previously unseen actuator mechanism on the first reinstalled canard suggests that this time around, SpaceX is installing Starship’s flaps with their final purpose of controlling Starship’s free-fall in mind.”
Teslarati, 11/04/2019
With the first installation complete, SpaceX’s Boca Chica technicians will likely be able to install Starship Mk1’s second canard more quickly. Beyond attaching the prototype’s control surfaces, SpaceX has also made a significant amount of progress outfitting Starship Mk1’s nose section with other hardware, notably fitting the nose’s exterior fuel lines with what is likely insulation.
That same black and silver insulation has been visible on SpaceX’s Starship Mk2 prototype in Cocoa, Florida, where technicians appear to have taken a slightly different step than Texas, insulating the plumbing before installing it on the vehicle.
Together again, at last
On October 30th, SpaceX lifted Starship Mk1’s tank and engine section onto a remote-controlled transported and moved the rocket half approximately a mile to its Boca Chica, Texas launch facilities, where Starship was installed on a freshly-constructed launch mount. SpaceX’s decision to move Mk1’s halves separately came as a bit of a surprise but appears to have been driven by a need to ensure that the spacecraft’s bottom half fit properly on the launch mount’s umbilical connections. Between the mount’s hefty steel beams, the beginnings of those panels (often deemed ‘quick disconnects’) are visible at the base of the panorama below.
Also visible around the base of Starship Mk1’s shiny aft section are a number of black steel structures – six, to be precise. Those protrusions are Starship’s landing legs, one of the last significant mechanisms installed on the rocket before SpaceX transported the half to the launch site. For unknown reasons, Starship Mk1’s legs – as well as Mk2’s – are almost nothing like those SpaceX have proposed for past Starship iterations and are even more dissimilar to Falcon 9’s extensively flight-proven hardware.
Instead of Falcon 9’s triangular, spread-eagle legs or BFR’s older tripod fin setup, Starship 2019 features six peg-like legs that only deploy or retract directly up or down. As some observers have noted, some of the hardware installed in and around those steel beam-like legs resembles industrial-grade linear brakes, suggesting that the legs will be deployed from their stowed positions by releasing those brakes and letting gravity do most of the work.
Layman concerns remain about the stability of six perfectly vertical legs with a span essentially the same as Starship’s own diameter, a possible indicator that the dead-simple landing legs on Mk1 and Mk2 may be dramatically simplified for the sake of speedy development. At the same time, it’s possible that their linear brake mechanisms could simultaneously offer some sort of minor suspension or terrain compensation, but their extremely narrow span fundamentally limits their potential stability. For landing on a prepared concrete slab, however, they will likely be sufficient, although almost any lateral velocity at all could result in Starship tipping over.
For now, SpaceX has road closures scheduled on November 7th, 8th, and 12th, the former two of which are probably more focused on transporting Starship Mk1’s nose section to the pad for installation atop the tank section. At the same time, SpaceX is clearly preparing for a series of major Starship tests, including a tank proof test, a wet dress rehearsal, and a triple-Raptor static fire. Stay tuned for updates!
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
