News
SpaceX Starship go for nosecone installation after historic static fire
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has confirmed that Starship and Raptor’s first triple-engine static fire was a success, opening the door for nosecone installation.
Around 3:13 am CDT, October 20th, Starship serial number 8 (SN8) successfully fired up three Raptor engines less than two hours after completing the first successful three-engine preburner test. With zero direct human intervention, SpaceX remotely detanked the rocket’s cryogenic liquid methane and oxygen propellant – the remnants now too warm to be used again in a controlled manner. In an hour or less, SpaceX engineers combed through the data produced and concluded that all three Raptor engines were healthy after their partial ignition test.
Effectively reset to a stable state, SpaceX once again proceeded to load Starship SN8’s propellant tanks with a small amount of supercooled LOx and LCH4, almost exactly mirroring the preburner test. Around 50 minutes after the recycle commenced and 25 minutes after propellant loading kicked off, Starship SN8 ignited three Raptors simultaneously – a major milestone for any rocket engine. Static fire now completed, Starship SN8 has been cleared to become the first operational prototype to reach its full 50m (~165 ft) height.
Shortly before Musk confirmed SN8’s static fire success, SpaceX canceled a preexisting October 20th static fire window and scheduled several new road closures on Wednesday, October 21st. Unlike the company’s recent static fire closures, all but one of which ran from 9pm to 6am, SpaceX’s new Wednesday closures are scheduled from 7am to noon and 3pm to 5pm local (CDT).
While a minor data point, in context with Starship SN8’s static fire success, the closures alone made it clear that SpaceX planned to begin installing Starship SN8’s nosecone on October 21st. Musk confirmed that assumption a few hours after those road closures were published.
It’s not entirely clear but most observers are assuming that Wednesday’s 7am-12pm window is needed to transport a large, new crane the ~2 miles between SpaceX’s Boca Chica factory and launch facilities. Starship SN8’s stacked nose section would then likely be installed on the same self-propelled mobile transporters (SPMT) and rolled to the launch pad from 3pm to 5pm, after which the nose would be lifted and stacked atop Starship SN8.
SpaceX has only fully stacked a Starship prototype once before when Mk1’s nose section was temporarily mated to its tank section to be the centerpiece of CEO Elon Musk’s October 2019 Starship event. It’s unclear why SpaceX wouldn’t simply use one of the mobile cranes its rented for Starship tank section operations (and stacking Mk1) in the past, so it remains to be seen what Wednesday’s road closures will actually be used for.
SpaceX’s road closure plans end with a wildcard, however. Once installed, the plan is to perform a second triple-Raptor static fire while only drawing propellant from SN8’s header tanks – small internal tanks designed to hold landing propellant, one of which is situated at the tip of Starship’s nosecone. On October 21st and 22nd, SpaceX still has two 9pm-6am closures scheduled for “SN8 static fire” testing. Filed early on October 20th, before SN8’s successful static fire, the most likely explanation is a simple clerical error or miscommunication, with Cameron County or SpaceX failing to properly communicate that those subsequent static fire test windows are no longer needed.
If retaining the static fire closures was intentional, it would mean that SpaceX – likely at Musk’s urging – intends to install Starship SN8’s nosecone in a matter of hours. It’s almost inconceivable that Starship SN8’s nosecone – outfitted with multiple gas thrusters, forward flaps powered by Tesla motors, a liquid oxygen header tank, vents, and plenty of plumbing – can be installed and made ready for testing in less than 12 hours. Barring a surprise method of mating SN8’s nose and tank sections, the nosecone will have to be welded to the rest of SN8 and the weld inspected – typically a multi-day process.
Regardless, given how quickly SpaceX moves and how dead-set CEO Elon Musk is at pushing limits and breaking barriers, it seems reasonable to assume that Starship SN8 may be fully integrated and ready for a second static fire test just a handful of days from now. Once completed, SN8 will be ready to attempt Starship’s first high-altitude flight test, launching to ~15 km (~9.3 mi) to attempt an untested skydiver-style descent and landing.
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
