News
SpaceX’s next Starship hop a step closer after ‘cryo proof’ test
SpaceX appears to have successfully completed one of three major tests standing between a new Starship prototype and the rocket’s next hop.
Known as a cryogenic proof test (“cryo proof”), signs currently point towards a success on Starship SN6’s first try – albeit an hour or two past the end of the planned test window. The proof was planned between 8 am and 5 pm CDT (UTC-5) on August 16th with identical backup windows on Monday and Tuesday in the event of an abort or delay. Thankfully, in a breath of fresh air after many Starship SN5 test delays, SpaceX had no such need.
With the help of local sheriffs, SpaceX closed the highway around 10:15 am and pressurized Starship SN6 with ambient-temperature gas (likely nitrogen) around half an hour later. As usual, the company took its time while the Starship prototype effectively came to life for the first time. Around 2.5 hours later, the Starship began visibly venting for the first time as it operated dozens of valves to maintain safe tank pressures.
To perform a cryogenic pressure test, SpaceX effectively performs a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) – a test that simulates a full launch flow short of liftoff – with no engine installed. To prevent leaks or hull breaches from turning potentially catastrophic during what is often the first major test of a prototype, SpaceX loads Starship with liquid nitrogen (LN2) instead of liquid methane and oxygen propellant. During that process, Starship’s thin steel skin will quickly drop to arctic temperatures, becoming cold enough that it will literally freeze the water vapor out of any ambient air it comes in contact with.
Around 1 pm local, the first sign of that frost sheath appeared but remained a sliver before disappearing around 2 pm. Starship SN6 then hung around for an hour before testing activities appeared to restart. Close to 5:40 pm, almost an hour after SpaceX’s August 16th window was meant to close, frost reappeared on Starship SN6’s hull and rapidly crept up the side of the massive rocket.
Starship SN5’s own cryo proof test – completed on June 30th – debuted apparent upgrades to SpaceX’s South Texas launch facilities, loading the rocket with hundreds of thousands of gallons of LN2 in 15-20 minutes. The ability to load huge quantities of cryogenic propellant very quickly will be critical for SpaceX, as Starship’s efficiency will decrease substantially as its propellant warms. Along those lines, Starship SN6 became the second prototype to be rapidly loaded with liquid nitrogen, going from nearly empty to nearly full in ~15 minutes.
SN6 detanked over the next hour or so and SpaceX opened the road and had a team back on the pad to inspect the rocket by 7:40 pm. At some point during the test, SpaceX likely actuated hydraulic arms attached to Starship’s engine section to simulate the stresses of Raptor thrust under cryogenic loads. Either way, SpaceX was apparently satisfied with the results of Starship SN6’s first cryo proof and proceeded to cancel two backup windows scheduled on August 17th and 18th – a consistent sign that things either went very right or very wrong.
In the case of SN6, nothing was distinctly amiss or different during its cryo proof, pointing towards a successful test. If that’s the case, SpaceX will begin removing the hydraulic Raptor simulator to install an actual Raptor engine and will scheduled road closures for an imminent static fire test. Prior to that actual Raptor ignition test, SpaceX may choose to perform a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) on its own or partially test Raptor by igniting its preburners to momentarily spin up its turbopumps. The company could also integrate both of those precursor tests into the same window as the static fire itself.
If those tests go according to plan, Starship SN6 could be ready for SpaceX’s second full-scale hop ever just a week (or less) later. CEO Elon Musk says that the company’s current goal is to perform multiple Starship tests until the process is fast, smooth, and consistent.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
