News
SpaceX almost drops finished Starship prototype – but it might be salvageable
Less than 48 hours after Starship SN8’s (successful) demise, something on or around a metal stand holding up SpaceX’s next completed Starship collapsed, causing the rocket to rapidly tilt sidewise and smash into the assembly building containing it.
Put simply, launch vehicles very rarely designed or expected to survive the kind of structural loads the fall and impact put Starship SN9 through and the early prognosis – prior to any up-close observation – was not not great. Weighing at least 50-70 metric tons (110,000-155,000 lb), any other rocket – and possibly even Starship itself – should have been damaged beyond repair from anything less than a minor bump.
Instead, Starship SN9 – fully assembled and perhaps just a few days away from a scheduled transport to the launch pad – shifted some 10 degrees (~10 m/30 ft) in a few seconds, seemingly coming to rest against scaffolding and the interior wall of SpaceX’s “high bay” assembly building. Had Starship fallen 180 degrees in the opposite direction, the results could have been catastrophic, potentially falling without a wall to stop it onto a Super Heavy booster section that could have had workers inside it. Luckily, the (hopeful) wakeup call was apparently benign, with SpaceX escaping loss of life or limb and avoiding any catastrophic damage.
Perhaps even worse, less than a day prior, a number of VIPs, SpaceX executives, investors, and even Elon Musk himself were touring the company’s Starship factory and standing feet away from SN9 itself. The most likely culprit of SN9’s fall may even be visible in photos taken by Steve Jurvetson, one such investor. In a few of those photos, Starship’s steel work stand – a staple of SpaceX’s Starship factories for ~18 months – appears to be precariously balanced upon five or six jacks with nothing more than gravity, SN9’s own mass, and some counterweights hold them together.
If those jacks – as they appear to be – weren’t bolted to the high bay’s concrete foundation or Starship SN9’s work stand, it could have been unintuitively easy to trigger a collapse like the one that occurred, perhaps requiring a minor bump with a forklift, a particularly extreme gust of wind, or some other kind of lateral force.
Regardless of why it happened, the end result was the same. Somewhat miraculously, Starship SN9 – as photos would soon show – appeared to be almost entirely unscathed, baring no obvious hull damage. The rocket’s fore and aft starboard flaps, however, were clearly crumpled. In fact, it’s possible that the crumpling of those largely empty, thin-skinned flaps acted just like the crumple zones designed into modern cars, essentially soaking up the energy of SN9’s impact with the wall and saving the rest of the rocket.
Still, the reality is that Starship SN9’s prognosis is still unlikely to be good, even if crumpling flaps seemingly prevented the rocket from becoming an unequivocal write-off. Depending on how strong SN9’s flaps were, the force of the impact could have easily been transferred into the structural hinges that connect them to Starship, warping internal stiffeners, the hinge mechanism itself, or even the entire curvature of its cylindrical steel hull.
If somehow limited to just the hinges or, even less likely, if the flaps took almost all of the impact energy, SN9 might be repairable. Even then, it’s unlikely that SpaceX will be able to hold to the schedule previously discussed on Teslarati, meaning that Starship SN9’s journey to the launch pad probably isn’t going to happen on Monday, December 14th. In the meantime, SpaceX will likely kick work on Starship SN10 – perhaps just a week or two behind SN9 – into full gear.
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
