News
SpaceX aces Starship static fire days after NASA astronaut visit
Update: Around 9am CDT (UTC-5), SpaceX successfully fired up Starship serial number 11’s (SN11) three Raptor engines, completing the static fire test on the first try of the day and just two hours into in Monday’s eight-hour window.
As far as three-engine Starship static fires go, SN11’s Monday test was about as smooth and clean as they come, boding extremely well for a launch attempt as early as either Tuesday or Wednesday, according to Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) filed with the FAA. With flight termination system (FTS) explosive charges already installed and an FAA license in hand, all that stands between Starship SN11 and flight is a deeper static fire review and the cooperation of local weather conditions. Stay tuned for updates!
A group of NASA astronauts appear to have taken an agency-sanctioned trip down to SpaceX’s Boca Chica Starship facilities, including a visit with a prototype scheduled to fire up and launch as early as this week.
Seemingly in lockstep with the accelerating pace of Starship production and testing, the frequency of NASA astronaut visits to SpaceX’s South Texas facilities has also seen an uptick over the last six or so months.
Back in 2019, SpaceX built Starhopper, performed numerous tests with early Raptor engine prototypes, and performed two untethered hops. With that success in hand, SpaceX turned its focus to Starship Mk1 and suffered an almost immediate failure during pressure testing, encouraging a series of rapid manufacturing upgrades largely completed in just a few months’ time.
In 2020, SpaceX pushed those new facilities to the limits while continuing major expansions. In 12 months, SpaceX built and tested five small ‘test tanks’ and six full Starship tank sections, performed almost a dozen Raptor static fires with that hardware, hopped two of those tanks (SN5 & SN6) to 150m, fully integrated the first full-height Starship (SN8), and nearly landed that vehicle after an otherwise flawless 12.5 km (7.8 mi) launch and descent.
Back in 2019, NASA inked its first monetary Starship contract with SpaceX, awarding $3M to prototype a coupling mechanism Starships will need to dock and refuel in space. In April 2020, NASA revealed that SpaceX – with its Starship launch vehicle – was one of three finalists selected to compete for a Human Landing System (HLS) Moon lander contract, providing the company $135M of the full $970M award to begin preliminary design and certification work.
Around five months later, a group of NASA astronauts made their first public visit to SpaceX’s Starship development hub in South Texas, overflying the factory and launch pad in training jets on a routine sortie out of Houston and Johnson Space Center. Days later, SpaceX won a $53M NASA “Tipping Point” contract to demonstrate large-scale cryogenic propellant transfer with a Starship prototype.
Ultimately, excluding rock-solid commercial crew and cargo partnerships, NASA’s relationship with SpaceX and the company’s Starship appears to be growing stronger every day. While it’s hard to say just how indicative of that growth the visible attention of NASA’s astronaut corps is, it’s worth taking note of what those same astronauts aren’t (publicly) overflying, visiting, and touring – namely factories, R&D facilities, or prototype hardware of HLS competitors Dynetics and Blue Origin.
Delayed by about a week, SpaceX is currently preparing to fire up its fourth full-size Starship prototype – SN11 – for the first time as early as Monday, March 22nd, 19 days after Starship SN10 briefly landed in one piece. SpaceX has filed temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) with the FAA for SN11’s 10 km (6.2 mi) launch debut from Tuesday through Friday, leaving plenty of opportunities for a launch this week if the rocket can successfully test its three Raptor engines by Wednesday.
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
