News
SpaceX begins building upgraded Starship prototype
A Starship part spotted on July 20th confirms that SpaceX is already well into the process of building a significantly upgraded full-scale prototype.
Following in the footsteps of five or six full-scale ships before it, information published by NASASpaceflight.com suggests that Starship SN8 will be a substantial departure from its predecessors. Thanks to data gathered by testing the Starship SN7 test tank to destruction on June 24th, SpaceX has determined that a different alloy – known as 304L – is superior to the 301 stainless steel all Starship prototypes have been built out of up to now.
SN8 is SpaceX’s response to that discovery. As usual, the company has performed smaller tests before deciding to build a full-scale Starship prototype – identical to all previous SNx prototypes beyond the alloy change – out of 304L stainless steel. As a result, Starship SN8 – once complete – may have the most potential of any prototype built thus far, but its fate will also be more uncertain than most of its predecessors.
On June 24th, SpaceX destroyed the SN7 Starship test tank as part of a controlled cryogenic proof test – essentially a pressure test at cryogenic (ultra-cold) temperatures. Departing from routine, CEO Elon Musk never commented on the test, leaving its results shrouded in mystery. According to NASASpaceflight, however, SN7 “achieved a record pressure before it failed.”
Designed to test a different formulation of stainless steel, that success implies that SN7 proved that the 304L alloy will not only be more malleable and forgiving at cryogenic temperatures – but is also more capable overall compared to 301 steel. To beat the record set by the second or third Starship test tank in January or March 2020, SN7 would have had to reach pressures of ~8.6 bar or higher – effectively icing on the cake for the already-demonstrated ~140% safety factor.
A full-scale Starship has yet to survive proof tests at those pressures but Starship SN4 did become the first to complete a full cryo proof, sustaining ~7.5 bar (~110 psi) before it was safely depressurized. Currently on the pad and preparing for an imminent static fire and hop test debut, Starship SN5 is unlikely to put pressure on that record unless that it aces both of the aforementioned trials. Built entirely out of the 304L alloy already proven to be superior to 301, SN8 may well be the golden goose of prototypes.
“The vehicle will feature major upgrades over previous Starship prototypes. SN8 will be built out of 304L stainless steel versus 301 and will receive a fairing, aerosurfaces, and three Raptor engines to allow for a higher-altitude test flight.”
NASASpaceflight.com — July 15th, 2020
The appearance of SN8’s labeled common dome – the dome separating Starship’s liquid oxygen and methane tanks – implies that a variety of other parts spotted over the last few days are also meant for the next full-scale rocket. Mounted on a stand purpose-built for the task, the SN8 common dome will soon be ‘sleeved’ by one or several stacked steel rings, after which it can be welded to the rest of the Starship’s tank. An engine section and thrust structure – likely SN8’s – in the late stages of assembly was spotted three days prior, while an upper tank dome that could be for either SN8 or test tank SN7.1 was captured in the same photos.
In the last photo, taken on July 13th, there’s even signs of what could be Starship SN9 – hinted at by the appearance of two Starship engine sections signified by the pattern of welds on their exteriors. Those welds are incontrovertible signs of the stringers used to strengthen Starship engine sections and they haven’t been used anywhere else on past prototypes.
Based on the sheer number of steel rings and domes currently floating around SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory, SN8 could be a just a week – or even less – away from final stacking operations. If SN5 leaves the pad intact and completes its wet dress rehearsal, static fire, and flight debut without issue, SN8 could be up to bat much sooner than later.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
