News
SpaceX putting the finishing touches on Starship’s orbital launch pad
SpaceX appears to have begun tying up a number of loose ends at Starship’s first orbital launch site, potentially setting the stage for major rocket testing CEO Elon Musk has stated could begin next month.
The list of tasks started or completed in just the last week or two is significant and each one is singularly focused on similar goals: pave the way for SpaceX to finish testing the first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster and prepare for the first orbital launch attempt of the largest rocket ever built. While SpaceX’s progress towards those goals over the last several months has been decidedly slow relative to the pace of similar work completed in the very recent past, the nominal timeline Musk recently sketched out suggests that things could once again start to happen at a dizzying rate.
Launch Tower
Kicking off a jam-packed two weeks of minor to major finishing touches, SpaceX rigged Starbase orbital launch tower’s rocket-catching arms to a system of pulleys, and ‘drawworks’ in a process known as “reeving.” Thousands of feet of rope were first threaded from up, down, and through the ~145m (~440 ft) tower to act as a temporary guide for the next step. Once fully rigged, anchored, and attached to the start of the steel cable actually meant to operate the system, the tower’s ‘drawworks’ was activated for the first time to reel in the guide rope – simultaneously installing the steel cable. By November 9th, the process was more or less complete, leaving the steel cable firmly attached to the tower’s giant rocket-catching arms and able to carry their significant weight.
Thanks Ralph and @StarshipGazer! Updated diagram below. pic.twitter.com/lUvcbshKGs— LunarCaveman (@LunarCaveman) November 10, 2021
SpaceX hasn’t quite finished installing those arms and does not appear to have picked up the slack in the cable that will eventually lift them up and down the tower, but the arm assembly’s first real move is likely just a few weeks away. Notably, a bit of scaffolding around the tower’s ‘legs’ still needs to be removed before the catch arms can freely roll up and down rails welded to their exteriors. SpaceX will also need to complete shakedown testing of the arms themselves, ensuring that the massive structures’ hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical systems are all working properly.
In the near future, those arms will be used to grab, lift, and install Super Heavy boosters and stack Starships on top of them, while SpaceX also hopes to eventually use them to catch boosters and ships out of mid-air. At least for the former role, a separate arm visible about halfway up the tower in the photo above will also be crucial. Known as the tower’s Starship quick-disconnect (QD) arm or claw, SpaceX has also made significant progress on the structure, practically completing it in the last few days.
Designed to fuel Starship and stabilize the top of Super Heavy with its claw, the Starship ‘QD arm’ is also able to swing left and right both to quickly back away during launches and to make room for the catch arms during rocket catches and ship/booster stacking operations. Last week, SpaceX technicians finished plumbing the arm, which requires thousands of feet of insulated steel tubes to connect to the pad’s propellant tanks. This week, on November 23rd, SpaceX installed the last major component of the arm – the actual quick disconnect (QD) mechanism that will connect to Starship to supply power, communications, and propellant.
A few small actuators likely still need to be installed and the QD mechanism itself will have to be fully connected to pad systems but the QD arm now appears to be more or less complete and should soon be ready to fuel Starships installed on top of Super Heavy boosters.
Launch Mount
Last but not least, SpaceX performed multiple tests of the pad’s ‘orbital launch mount’ – the giant, steel structure that will support Super Heavy, hold the booster down during testing and before liftoff, and supply it with thousands of tons of propellant. On November 21st, SpaceX completed the first of those tests, seemingly venting an unknown gas out of the mount. More likely than not, it was the first simultaneous test of all 20 of the mounts Raptor Boost engine gas supplies, which – having no need to reignite in flight – will rely on ground gas supplies for ignition. Each of Super Heavy’s 20 outer Raptor engines has a small umbilical and quick disconnect mechanism, resulting in what is likely the most mechanically complex rocket launch mount ever built.
On November 22nd, the orbital launch mount’s booster quick disconnect panel actuated for the first time, showing off the first glimpse of how it will move forward to connect to Super Heavy after a booster is installed on the mount. To prevent its sensitive components from being practically incinerated each launch, the mount’s QD panel will also need to rapidly move away from Super Heavy just before liftoff.
Aside from simply avoiding direct impingement from the several-thousand-degree plume created by 29-33 Raptor engines at full thrust, that movement will also tie into some kind of hood, seamlessly actuating hatches that will close to truly protect the device. That hood was itself spotted for the first time on November 21st and will likely be installed on the launch mount and over the naked QD mechanism in the very near future.
Finally, over the last week or so, SpaceX has begun installing a number of new pipes on and around the launch mount, likely assembling a water deluge system that will help manage the extreme thermal and acoustic environment created by the most powerful rocket in history shortly before and after liftoff. When activated, a spray bar circling the mount’s full interior circumference will likely unleash several tons of water per second in a giant artificial waterfall, hopefully preventing Super Heavy from damaging itself with the sheer sound produced by its Raptor engines or violently eroding the surrounding pad or launch mount legs with its plume.
Ultimately, once all the tower, arm, and mount work described above is completed, the only obvious thing standing between the orbital launch pad and the first Super Heavy booster testing and first orbital Starship launch will be the delivery of liquid methane fuel, which could easily begin any day now.
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
