News
SpaceX already clearing Starship debris, preparing for next rocket rollout
Update: Half a day after Starship serial number 10 (SN10) became the first prototype to land in one piece, SpaceX has begun clearing its remains and preparing to roll the next rocket to the launch pad.
Never one to rest on its laurels, SpaceX appears to be wasting no time moving forward from Starship SN10’s successful landing and subsequent explosion. Almost a month ago, SpaceX stacked SN10’s successor – Starship SN11 – to its full height and has spent the last four weeks closing out the virtually identical rocket. As of SN10’s launch debut, Starship SN11 has been more or less finished and ready to roll to the launch pad for at least a week.
At the same time as SpaceX teams have begun the process of recovering SN10’s remains, the company also transported a large crane to the launch site – the same crane used to install Starships SN8, SN9, and SN10 at the launch pad. Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX prepares SN11 for a fourth high-altitude launch and landing attempt – this time with the goal of keeping the rocket intact after landing.
In a classically spectacular fashion, a SpaceX Starship prototype has successfully touched down in one piece for the first time ever, only to explode minutes later after catching itself on fire.
Rolled from SpaceX Boca Chica Starship factory to test and launch facilities just a mile down the road on January 28th, Starship SN10 lifted off just five weeks later – the fastest factory-to-launch flow yet. The speed of that turnaround was mainly made possible thanks to an exceptionally smooth test campaign, passing cryogenic proof and static fire tests after only a few attempts.
Prior to its second launch attempt, Starship SN10 automatically aborted a few seconds prior to its first attempt after the rocket’s flight computer determined that its three Raptor engines were producing more thrust than expected. Within half an hour of the abort, CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to reveal the cause and stated that SpaceX would be tweaking the flight software’s thrust limits and recycling for another shot at launch around two hours later.


Up to the last 20 or so seconds of the 6.5-minute flight test, Starship SN10’s launch debut was virtually identical to Starships SN8 and SN9, both of which made it just one or two dozen seconds away from a soft landing. However, after SN9, SpaceX optimized the landing process to add additional redundancy, meaning that SN10 reignited all three of its Raptor engines – instead of just two – for its flip and landing burn.
Exactly as planned, SN10 fired up those engines, autonomously analyzed their performance, and then shut down two Raptors to leave the best-behaving engine to complete the final landing burn. Unlike SN8 and SN9, that maneuver went about as well as it could have, nearly slowing SN10 to a hover with one (seemingly) healthy engine to take it the rest of the way to the ground.


After all that heroic effort and for the first time ever, Starship SN10 proceeded to touch down in one piece. Through the eyes of a drone hovering far away from the launch complex, the landing couldn’t exactly be considered ‘soft,’ however, and SN10 impacted the landing zone with some substantial momentum – likely far too much for its tiny legs to handle.
However, more importantly, SN10 appeared to ignite one or two of its own gaseous oxygen or methane vents, triggering a fire that remained visible until well after the hard – but intact – landing. From official and unofficial views of the landed vehicle, Starship SN10 had a significant lean and appeared to have no more than a few inches to a foot of clearance between its aft skirt and the concrete pad. Remote-controlled firefighting spigots were able to extinguish any external sign of fire but that lack of clearance may have prevented the water from doing much inside the skirt, ultimately dooming Starship SN10.

Regardless of where exactly that fire ‘broke through,’ so to speak, the original cause of the fire – accidentally igniting a vent plume – is unlikely to be a hard problem to fix, and it’s safe to say that SN10’s intact landing is an extraordinary success for SpaceX. In its official webcast, SpaceX engineer John Insprucker confirmed that Starship SN11 is all but complete and could roll out to the launch pad to pick up where SN10 left off almost as soon as it’s safe to do so.
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.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
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.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
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.