News
SpaceX rolls out Starship, stacks world’s largest rocket, and aces Starlink launch hours apart
In 15 hours, SpaceX has rolled a new Starship to its South Texas launch and test facilities, reassembled the world’s largest rocket, launched Starlink satellites to orbit, and recovered a reused Falcon 9 booster in port.
The burst of activity began around sunset at SpaceX’s Starbase rocket factory in Boca Chica, Texas when a new orbital-class Starship prototype left its ‘nest’ for the first time. SpaceX rolled the Starship – known as Ship 25 – a few miles down the highway to its nearby launch and test facilities, where workers connected it to a large crane and waited for daylight.
Around 9 am CDT the following day, October 20th, SpaceX lifted Ship 25 onto one of two Starship test stands, where it will eventually attempt to complete several qualification tests. While Ship 25 was still suspended in mid-air, the Starbase launch pad’s orbital launch tower began lifting a different prototype, Ship 24, into the air with a pair of giant ‘chopsticks’ – mechanical arms designed by SpaceX to replace one of the largest mobile cranes in the world.
Then, while it was stacking Ship 24 on top of Super Heavy Booster 7 and installing Ship 25 on a test stand, a Falcon 9 rocket carrying 54 new Starlink satellites lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida. Minutes prior, SpaceX finished craning a reused Falcon 9 booster off one of its drone ship landing platforms in a port ten miles south.
Starlink 4-36 was SpaceX’s 48th launch of 2022 and 56th launch in less than 12 months, so its Falcon launch program simply doesn’t have time to waste. Drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) returned to port with Falcon 9 booster B1069 about 12 hours before the rocket was transferred from the ship’s deck to a stand on SpaceX’s Port Canaveral dock space. The company will now be able to retract B1069’s legs and complete any necessary booster and drone ship refurbishment, ensuring that both will be ready for their next missions in the near future.
Back in Texas, SpaceX is scheduled to begin thoroughly testing a fully-stacked Starship rocket for the first time as early as Monday, October 24th. Ship 24 was reinstalled on Booster 7 for that purpose after SpaceX disassembled the pair for several days, possibly due to forecasts of high winds. The test campaign is expected to begin with the first full wet dress rehearsal (WDR) of a two-stage Starship, meaning that the rocket will be fully loaded with thousands of tons of liquid methane and oxygen propellant and run through a simulated launch countdown that ends just before engine ignition.
If successful, SpaceX will likely restart Booster 7 static fire testing and continue to work its way up to the first simultaneous ignition of all 33 of its Raptor 2 engines. If the pair survive WDR and static fire testing, SpaceX could begin preparing the same rocket for Starship’s orbital launch debut.
If significant issues arise during testing, SpaceX could choose to retire Ship 24 and/or Booster 7 and move on to a new and improved pair: likely Ship 25 and Booster 8 or 9. Already complete, Super Heavy Booster 8 has been sitting untouched at Starbase’s launch site for weeks, making it uncertain whether SpaceX actually intends to test or use the prototype. Booster 9 is just one stack away from completion, at which point it will be ready to begin proof testing. According to CEO Elon Musk, B9 features significant improvements that will make it more resilient to mid-flight Raptor engine failures. It could also be the first Super Heavy booster with no hydraulic system, thanks to a new version of Raptor that replaces hydraulic thrust vectoring with a battery-powered alternative.
Starship S25 could kick off its own proof testing as early as next week. Unlike Ship 24, Ship 25 went straight from the factory to a test stand that has been modified with six hydraulic rams. Those rams will simulate the thrust of six Raptor 2 engines (up to ~1400 tons or 3.1M lbf) while the Starship is simultaneously loaded with cryogenic liquid oxygen and/or nitrogen, combining peak mechanical and thermal stresses into one test. Once Ship 25 is done, it will be rolled back to the factory for Raptor engine installation and will eventually return to the pad for static fire testing.
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
