News
SpaceX outfits Starship prototype with unique Starlink satellite dispenser
After several weeks of work and occasional glimpses of the hardware and installation process, it’s now clear that SpaceX has outfitted part of its next Starship prototype with a truly unique Starlink satellite dispenser.
It remains to be seen if this particular assembly is simply a pathfinder – an experiment never meant for flight – or an integral part of a prototype that could become the first Starship to reach space or even orbit. In the first few months of 2022 a pathfinder with a much larger bay door was also quickly assembled but ultimately moved to the scrapyard. SpaceX’s latest payload bay prototype is quite different.
First, the device installed inside what appears to be the steel rings Starship S24’s nosecone will eventually be stacked on top of is almost nothing like any satellite deployment adapter observed in the past or present. The rectangular framework SpaceX craned inside of the barrel-like section of five steel rings – a cylinder measuring around 9m x 9m (30 ft x 30 ft) – about two weeks ago looked rudimentary and lacked any obvious moving parts, generating some ambiguity. Based on its apparent dimensions, the frame could likely extend anywhere from 10-15m (30-50 feet) up into Ship 24’s nosecone before the diameter would get too narrow for it to continue.
If it was a satellite deployment adapter, which most expected it to be, it was nothing like any other common adapter – including SpaceX’s own unusual present-day Starlink deployment method. It wasn’t until March 24th that SpaceX spun the nose barrel around, revealing an unusual cutout akin to a giant mail slot. At that point, it became clear that Ship 24’s nose had been fitted with a Starlink satellite deployment mechanism akin to a giant PEZ dispenser.
Instead of a large, alligator-like payload bay, all Starship would need is a comparatively tiny slot and either an active or passive mechanical deployment mechanism. Starlink satellites would first be loaded one by one into the slot and somehow lifted inside the bay on the rail-like frame SpaceX recently installed. Eventually, that dispenser would be filled with a stack of an unknown number of Starlink satellites – likely larger Starlink V2 prototypes but possibly today’s smaller V1.5 satellite variant. Once in orbit, the stack of satellites would be ejected one by one through Starship’s payload slot. The satellites could potentially be passively fed down to the slot with a tension mechanism or Starship’s maneuvering thrusters, reducing the dispenser’s complexity.
Crucially, alongside the first fully outfitted prototype with an upgraded Starship nosecone design, the ‘nose barrel’ the apparent Starlink dispenser is part of has also been fitted with heat shield stand-offs, ceramic wool insulation, and netting. Most importantly, technicians began installing dinner plate-sized heat shield tiles on the barrel section’s exterior within the last few days. The logic behind SpaceX’s Starbase decision-making has been increasingly indecipherable in recent months but, in theory, it would make little logical sense to waste time, effort, and money installing a thermal protection system (TPS) on a Starlink dispenser.
In other words, it’s quite likely that this Starlink dispenser is actually a part of Ship 24 flight hardware. Alongside Booster 7, Ship 24 is widely believed to be the first Starship scheduled to attempt an orbital launch after the recent demotion of Ship 20 and Booster 4. That means that it’s quite possible that this dispenser is actually meant to deploy Starlink satellites from Starship. According to Elon Musk, Ship 24 and Booster 7’s orbital test flight could occur as early as May 2022.
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
