News
SpaceX rolls Raptor Vacuum engines to launch pad for Starship’s next tests
For the second time, SpaceX is gearing up to install a full six Raptor engines on the first orbital-class Starship prototype.
This time around, though, there’s reason to believe that the preparations SpaceX is making aren’t a false start and could culminate in one or several record-breaking Starship static fires as early as next week.
SpaceX installed Raptors on Starship S20 for the first time in early August, outfitting the 50m (165 ft) tall prototype with a full six engines as part of a fit test that ultimately saw it installed on top of a Super Heavy booster. Ship 20 only spent an hour on top of Booster 4, though, and was quickly returned to Starbase build site for Raptor removal and final outfitting. Ship 20 was then rolled back to the launch site and installed on one of two suborbital launch mounts and test stands in mid-August, where it has sat ever since.
Between September 4th and 10th, SpaceX then appeared to install three sea-level-optimized Raptor Center (RC) engines and one Raptor Vacuum (RVac) engine on Starship S20 before the prototype had completed any proof testing. Whether that set of installs was a fit test or an aborted attempt at full installation, SpaceX seemingly paused at three or four Raptors and ultimately removed the lone RVac and one or more of S20’s sea-level engines. Another sea-level Raptor was (re)installed on September 15th.
After a frenetic month of back and forth with no obvious rhyme or reason, all of Ship 20’s Raptors were removed and a series of hydraulic rams used to simulate engine thrust – removed, unused, back in August – were reinstalled. Starship then completed pneumatic and cryogenic proof tests in the last few days of September.
After another ten or so days of unusual downtime, SpaceX began reinstalling Raptors on Ship 20 – one sea-level and one vacuum – around October 10th for a static fire test campaign that began about a week later. Finally, on October 21st, SpaceX fired up the orbital-class prototype for the first time, also completing the first test of a Raptor Vacuum engine installed on a Starship. Barely an hour later, Starship S20 performed a second test, simultaneously firing up both RVac and RC engine in another first.
Barely a full day after that successful back-to-back static fire test, SpaceX rolled two more sea-level Raptors to the suborbital pad and installed them on Ship 20. Another unusual week of downtime later and, on October 28th, SpaceX has rolled two more Raptor Vacuum engines from the build site to the launch pad and staged them beside Starship. Once installed, Starship S20 will, for the second time, be fully outfitted with six Raptors. Having already fired up two of those engines without needing either replaced, though, there’s a decent chance that all six will actually be used before Ship 20’s next bout of engine removal/installation deja vu.
SpaceX has never fired more than three engines at a time on a Starship prototype or at its suborbital test site, so a number of firsts potentially lay before Ship 20 as it nears a second round of static fire testing. There is some uncertainty as to whether the suborbital test stands can actually handle the stress from static fires with more than three Raptors, but if they can, then S20 will likely be the first prototype to ignite more 4+ engines and could become the first Starship to fire all six engines at once.
SpaceX currently has one possible test window scheduled from 10am to 6pm CDT on Monday, November 1st, though it could be another week or more before Starship S20’s next static fire attempt if past trends continue.
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
