News
SpaceX’s Starship prototype is looking increasingly rocket-like as hop test pad expands
As SpaceX’s South Texas operations continue full steam ahead in pursuit of the first integrated hop tests of a full-scale Starship prototype, the company’s Starhopper and its complementary launch/hop pad are dramatically and visibly evolving on a daily basis.
This week’s progress has been signified by the installation of familiar rocket hardware on the Ship and a burst of construction – centered around pipelaying, plumbing, foundation work, and berm-building – at its pad. Just a few hundred miles north of Boca Chica, SpaceX’s team of propulsion engineers and technicians reached their own dramatic milestone, conducting the first static fire of a finalized version of the Raptor engine set to power Starship and Super Heavy (formerly BFR).
2-4-2019#SpaceX #TheFuture pic.twitter.com/0YBxk5QXD3
— Austin Barnard🚀 (@austinbarnard45) February 5, 2019
A pad fit for a Starhopper
In the last ~10 days alone (Jan 24-Feb 4), SpaceX pad construction workers and contractors transformed the former dirt mound from a generally flat, planed surface with a spattering of shipping containers and building materials into a hive of welding rigs, propellant and water tanks, major plumbing progress, shaped earth, and the beginnings of new concrete foundations. Thanks to local student Austin Barnard’s reliable drone photography, that pad-specific progress can be more properly visualized.
Taken on January 24th and February 4th respectively, the devil is definitely in the details when it comes to SpaceX’s prospective Starhopper pad development. Most notable is the progress made with the rapidly developing propellant plant and ground systems infrastructure in the left half of the images, marked by hundreds of feet of freshly-installed piping meant to support the process of fueling Starhopper with liquid methane and oxygen. For a rocket as powerful as Starhopper (even with just three Raptor engines), cooling both the propellant and the concrete launch and landing pad is no less important, visible in the shape of three large water tanks (lefthand foreground) and a smaller radiator stack (just to the right of two taller, skinnier white tanks.
Aside from the rapid rise of the first BFR propellant farm and its supporting equipment, SpaceX has progressed into the installation of a trio of concrete foundations just to the right of the dirt berm and propellant tank area. Standing as close as it is to said propellant tanks, it seems unlikely that the new foundation-laying is related to the pad (or a stand) meant to support early Starhopper hop tests, although SpaceX’s Falcon 9-era Grasshopper and F9R hop test vehicles operated about the same distance from its propellant infrastructure. SpaceX’s South Texas site also features a sort of satellite pad at its east end (the right side in attached photos) that could have a future as an integration hangar or a secondary landing zone to allow for Starhopper to perform divert tests.
-
- Rockets are perhaps even more capital intensive. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster is at least three times more powerful still than BFS at liftoff. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR (2018) breaks through a cloud layer shortly after launch. (SpaceX)
-
- (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster, now known as Super Heavy. (SpaceX)
Depending on whether SpaceX actually intends to develop the land shown above into an actual full-scale launch facility for BFR (Super Heavy and Starship), it could also remain generally unchanged until Starhopper’s hop test program has been run to completion, at which point everything seen above would likely be rebuilt from scratch to accommodate for any drastic changes in function. SpaceX’s Boca Chica might simply be too small to support a pad capable of launching Super Heavy (nearly twice as powerful as Saturn V at full thrust), measuring in at considerably less than ~10 acres of usable area compared to LC-40’s ~20 acres and Pad 39A’s ~50+ acres. CEO Elon Musk has also hinted at using a giant floating platform for early orbital BFR launches, although that might prove even harder (and more costly) than building a traditional land-based pad.
Becoming a rocket
Meanwhile, the aft engine/fin/tank section of SpaceX’s Starship prototype (unofficially nicknamed Starhopper) has experienced a stream of hardware additions and improvements, modifying its relatively awkward and unfinished steel base with what appear to be Falcon 9-sized quick-disconnect umbilical panels, a functional propellant tank header, and mounting hardware for carbon-overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs). By using hardware that is proven and easy to manufacture, SpaceX can save a huge amount of time that would otherwise need to be spent engineering subassemblies that (at risk of undervaluing the challenge) are generally known-quantities – more a matter of time and effort than an actual technical hurdle.
-
- B1048’s second umbilical panel (blue for oxygen). (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 displays one of two umbilical panels (red for kerosene) after its first launch. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Starhopper’s partially completed umbilical panel as of Feb. 4th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
-
- A SpaceX technician or contractor is pictured here cutting out sections of Starhopper’s steel hull to route umbilical panel piping. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal, 02/03/19)
-
- Starhopper also had a tank header installed on February 5th, complete with pressure regulation and propellant feeding hardware. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
While they are clearly still in a rough, unfinished form, Starhopper’s umbilical panels are already easy to recognize when compared alongside Falcon 9’s iconic red and blue panel pairs. In essence, whereas Starhopper has been a largely unknown quantity with no familiar aspects since it began to come together late last year, the Starship prototype has recently had hardware installed that is finally revealing subtle SpaceX signatures in its design and assembly.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
