News
SpaceX wants to launch its next Starship ASAP
Contrary to recent comments from CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX appears to be forging ahead at full speed in a bid to launch its next Starship ASAP.
Known as Starship serial number 10 (SN10), the prototype is the latest in a series of four ships SpaceX has ultimately set aside from low(er)-altitude development testing. Starship SN8 – the first functional prototype to reach its full height – debuted on December 8th, 2020, blowing expectations out of the water with a failure mere seconds before the end of a more than six-minute flight test. According to Musk, had a fuel tank remained properly pressurized from start to finish, SN8 could have very well stuck the landing on the first try.
Two months later, after the better part of two weeks of licensing and static fire test delays, Starship SN9 attempted to carry the torch forward but suffered an unrelated failure slightly earlier than SN8’s. One of two Raptor engines failed to ignite for a high-risk flip and landing burn, causing the Starship to impact the ground even more violently than its predecessor. It’s unclear why the ill-fated Raptor failed to ignite or why the engine that did ignite appeared to experience a major failure shortly thereafter but rocket propulsion is extraordinarily difficult – and Raptor is near – or at – the end of that scale.
While SpaceX obviously hasn’t spun around and fixed a complex Starship propulsion issue in a matter of days, Musk eventually revealed his opinion that he, his engineers, or some combination of both “were too dumb” to exploit one obvious way to mitigate the risk of engine failure during flip and landing. That ‘obvious’ tweak: reignite all three of Starship’s available landing engines, not just two.
In theory, with a fast-enough response time, Starship could ignite all three Raptors, perform a supercharged flip from a belly- to tail-down orientation, and selectively shut off one of the engines based on the data from what is essentially a midair static fire. In the event that all three engines are performing nominally, Starship would shut down the least useful engine (i.e. the Raptor with the least leverage) for a gentle two-engine landing burn.
That said, the ship landing burn has a clear solution. My greatest concern is achieving good payload to orbit with rapid & full reusability, without which we shall forever be confined to Earth.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2021
Impressively, Musk said that SpaceX would implement those changes immediately, attempting the first three-engine reignition as early as Starship SN10’s launch debut. Already at the launch pad when Starship SN9 lifted off, SpaceX revealed plans to launch SN10 as early as February 2021 at the end of SN9’s test flight webcast.
A few days prior to SN9’s ill-fated test flight, Musk had also stated that Starship SN10 would perform a “cryoproof” test and only then have its three Raptor engines installed. Instead, in an apparent change of plans, SpaceX installed Starship SN10’s Raptors – SN39, SN50, and an unknown third engine – from February 5th to 7th.
On Sunday, local longtime resident Mary (aka BocaChicaGal) received an official safety alert from SpaceX, signaling plans for an explosive Starship test of some kind as early as Monday, February 8th. Historically, those overpressure safety warnings have only been distributed when SpaceX is preparing for a Starship static fire attempt. In other words, it’s possible that Starship SN10’s very first test could be a live wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with flammable liquid oxygen and methane propellant. If that WDR goes well, SpaceX could move directly into a one, two, or three-engine static fire.
Of course, as SN9’s lengthy test period rubbed in, Starship is still in the prototype stage and is far from a mature system, meaning that it’s always safer to expect delays than an on-time performance. To be clear, it’s far more likely that SpaceX will perform a familiar “cryo proof” test with non-flammable liquid nitrogen – perhaps hoping to complete a cryoproof and static fire in the same test window.
Either way, stay tuned for updates and follow along with NASASpaceflight’s excellent live coverage in the event that SpaceX really is prepared to static fire Starship SN10 between 9am and 6pm CST (UTC-6) on Monday.
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
