News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut could still happen this year
Despite the spectacular demise of a full-scale prototype just days ago, a senior SpaceX engineer and executive believes that Starship could still be ready for its first orbital launch attempt before the end of the year.
Even if the first launch attempt fails, that milestone – if realized – would be one of the single biggest upsets in the history of spaceflight, proving that Saturn V-scale orbital-class rockets can likely be built in spartan facilities with common materials for pennies on the dollar. Much like Falcon 1 suffered three launch failures before successfully reaching orbit, there’s a strong chance that Starship’s first shot at orbit will fall short, although each full-up launch failure would likely cost substantially more than the current prototypes being routinely tested to destruction in South Texas.
Most recently, what CEO Elon Musk later described as a “a minor test of a quick disconnect” went wrong in a spectacular fashion, causing a major liquid methane leak that subsequently ignited and created a massive explosion. Although Starship SN4 did technically complete its fifth Raptor engine static fire test just a minute or so prior, the ship and its immediate surroundings were obliterated by the violent explosion, leaving little more than steel shrapnel and the broken husk of a launch mount behind. It’s in this context that one of SpaceX’s most levelheaded, expert executives believes that an orbital launch could still happen this year.
While Starship SN4’s demise and the continued possibility of the ship’s orbital launch debut occurring less than seven months from now may seem at odds with each other, that’s actually just a side effect of the approach SpaceX has always taken when developing brand new rockets and spacecraft. Following the lead of the scrappy teams that used the exact same methods to design, test, and fly the massive Saturn rockets that took humans to the Moon, SpaceX has always preferred to learn by doing.
Inevitably, testing minimum viable products to their limits will lead to failures, but those failures are actually extremely valuable so long as they are extensively analyzed and learned from. That’s exactly what SpaceX has been doing for the last six or so months with full-scale Starship prototypes: building, testing, failing, and improving in an unending cycle. Built slowly with inferior methods, Starship Mk1 almost immediately during its first pressure test in November 2019. SpaceX took that failure, extracted all the insight it could, and dramatically improved its production methods before completing Starship SN1 barely three months later.
Prior to SN1, SpaceX built and tested two stout test tanks to failure, ultimately achieving pressures of ~8.5 bar – sufficient for reliable human spaceflight – with the second tank on January 30th, 2020. On February 28th, Starship SN1 was unfortunately destroyed by a faulty ‘thrust puck’ (Raptor engine mount). Just 10 days later, SpaceX successfully tested a third ad-hoc test tank, proving that it had already rectified the engine section design flaw. Hardware isn’t always the only problem, however, and Starship SN3 was destroyed by human operator error during a cryogenic proof test on April 3rd.
Starship SN4 was completed and moved to the launch pad less than a month later and began testing just a few days after that, quickly racking up milestones as it became the first full-scale prototype to pass cryogenic proof testing, perform a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with real propellant, fire up a Raptor engine, and complete a more ambitious cryogenic pressure test. Prior to the ground systems fuel leak that killed it, SN4 was possibly just days away from attempting the inaugural flight of a full-scale Starship prototype.
With Starship SN4 now steel confetti, Starship SN5 – effectively complete – will likely take over where its predecessor left off, heading to the launch pad within the next week or so before attempting a cryogenic pressure test and Raptor static fire to clear it for flight. Per Koenigsmann, that flight debut could come just a few weeks from now – likely before the end of June if replacement ground equipment can be quickly completed. If Starship SN5 survives that hop debut, it may ultimately be upgraded with a nosecone, flaps, and two additional Raptor engines to perform a dramatic 20 km (~12 mi) flight, capped with a supersonic skydiver-style reentry and landing test.
Once that capability has been successfully demonstrated, Super Heavy development and orbital Starship operation and reentry are the next critical hurdles. If Koenigsmann is correct, it’s safe to say that the first fully heat-shielded Starships and the beginnings of the first one or several Super Heavy booster prototypes will begin to appear in South Texas within the next few months.
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
