News
SpaceX Starship rocket set to reach full height for the second time ever
A SpaceX Starship prototype is on track to become the first to reach its full, operational height in a permanent fashion, following in the footsteps of a much earlier prototype that had its nose section temporarily installed last year.
Known as Starship Mk1, that prototype served as more of a learning experience, pathfinder, and mockup over the ~8 months it took to build it and the few weeks it took to destroy it. While its conical nose section was partially outfitted with smaller ‘header’ propellant tanks, it was never fully installed, with SpaceX only temporarily stacking it on top of Starship Mk1’s tank section to serve as the centerpiece of CEO Elon Musk’s October 2019 update event. Mk1’s nosecone was removed shortly after the event was over, while the rocket’s more important tank section was rolled to a nearby launch pad for testing.
More than six months later, Starship SN5 appears to be firmly on its way to becoming the first of SpaceX’s next-generation launch vehicle prototypes to have a (mostly) functional nose section permanently installed. If that ends up being the case, SpaceX’s fifth full-scale Starship prototype may become the first to have multiple Raptor engines installed and the first to perform a high-altitude flight test. Of course, that will depend quite heavily on the fate of Starship SN4, currently trapped in limbo after a May 19th static fire caused SpaceX to partially lose control of the rocket.
While not immediately clear, comments made by CEO Elon Musk and SpaceX officials suggested that the company was aiming to perform low-altitude hops with Starship SN4 and graduate to high-altitude testing with the next prototype off the assembly line (SN5). With a development program as agile as SpaceX’s Starship effort, however, plans are liable to change at almost any moment.
On May 17th, however, it became clear that – at least for the time being – SpaceX fully intends for Starship SN5 to become the first serially-produced ship to have a nosecone installed. On that Sunday, a brand new steel nose section – the fourth built by SpaceX in the last few months – was rolled out of a massive factory tent, revealing labels that rather unambiguously read “SN5”.
SN5 refers to Starship serial number 5, the fifth full-scale rocket prototype overall and fourth built since the start of 2020. Over the last six or so months, SpaceX has dramatically expanded its production footprint in South Texas, reaching a point now where it’s churning out a rough Starship prototype every month, on average. Starship SN5 is no different, with its tank section largely completed as of May 15th, give or take a day or two.
Now, on May 19th, a new collection of five stacked steel rings appeared alongside Starship SN5’s largely completed tank and engine section. Combined with the new nosecone labeled “SN5”, it’s now readily and unequivocally apparent that the prototype is probably a matter of days away from having a nosecone installed. Unless SpaceX has adopted different methods for Starship SN6 production and assembly, a stack of five steel rings – lacking any sign of a tank dome welded inside it – will serve as the base that SN5’s nosecone can be stacked on top of. Once stacked with its nose section, Starship SN5 will measure some 50m (~165 ft) tall – at least several meters taller than a Falcon 9 booster.
The nosecone itself is also quite interesting, featuring two sets of four mysterious thruster nozzles, signs of interior components and reinforcements, and two recessed struts presumably meant to attach to Starship’s forward flaps.
While exciting, there is certainly still a chance that Starship SN4 – trapped at the launch pad – will have to be destroyed or will be unsalvageable even if SpaceX is able to finally access and safe the prototype. If so, Starship SN5 will likely take its place, performing a Raptor static fire, a ~150m (~500 ft) hop test, and an additional ~3 km (~1.9 mi) flight test before potentially moving on to triple Raptor operations and high-altitude flights. Stay tuned for updates on SN4’s fate and SN5’s production status.
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
