News
SpaceX destacks “420” Starship, Super Heavy pair for the third time
Update: Shortly before SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed that Super Heavy booster B4 and Starship S20 are no longer assigned to the rocket’s orbital launch debut, the company ‘destacked’ the pair for the third time.
Ship 20 was removed from Booster 4 on March 19th, two days before Musk’s tweets. That’s not unusual: it was actually Ship 20’s third removal from Super Heavy. However, almost as soon as the Starship was rolled out of the way, SpaceX began making visible preparations to also remove Super Heavy B4 from Starbase’s orbital launch mount. As of March 24th, the booster has been attached to a large crane for more than a day and a newly upgraded transport stand has been rolled into place beside the launch mount. It’s somewhat odd that the booster hasn’t already been removed but that step could happen at almost any moment, now – albeit likely in daylight.
Once both Ship 20 and Booster 4 have been removed, it’s hard to imagine that they will ever return to the orbital launch mount. In fact, at minimum, Super Heavy B4 will probably be retired almost immediately. Super Heavy B7 – a superior, refined, and upgraded prototype by almost every measure – is already almost fully assembled and could likely begin basic testing within a week or two.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Super Heavy Booster B4 and Starship S20 are no longer scheduled to support the first orbital-class test flight of the world’s largest rocket.
Rumors, signs, and reports of the significant change have been flowing among unofficial spaceflight communities for months. Booster 4 and Ship 20 were first confirmed by Elon Musk to be the pair assigned to Starship’s orbital test flight (OTF) in the summer of 2021. When the pair first rolled out to the launch pad in early August, Musk seemed confident that they could be ready for an orbital launch attempt within a month or two. The same was true in November 2021, when Musk stated that the same Starship and Super Heavy pair could be ready for their first launch as early as January or February 2022.
Musk’s latest update on Starship’s orbital test flight continues that schedule optimism but also introduces several major changes – changes that could easily take several months to fully work through.
Crucially, Musk revealed that the first Starship to attempt an orbital-class launch will now feature upgraded Raptor V2 engines – engines that require an entirely new thrust structure design. That already all but guaranteed that B4 and S20 had been overtaken but Musk also explicitly confirmed that they would be replaced with a new pair in a later tweet.
That new pair – widely assumed to be Super Heavy B7 and Starship S24 – feature a wide range of design changes, including substantially modified header tanks, an entirely new nosecone design, new layouts for secondary systems (pressurization, avionics, heat exchangers, etc.), and more. Most importantly, their thrust structures – giant ‘pucks’ machined out of steel – have been tweaked to support new Raptor V2 engines instead of the Raptor V1 and V1.5 engines that have been installed and tested on all Starship and Super Heavy prototypes to date.
Musk believes that SpaceX will be able to build (and presumably qualify) all 39 of the Raptors Ship 24 and Booster 7 will need before the end of April and fully install them – as well as all the heat shield components that must be fitted around them – by the end of May 2022. It’s unclear if the SpaceX CEO is accounting for the extensive proof testing Ship 24 and Booster 7 will likely need to complete before being qualified for flight, including cryogenic proof tests, wet dress rehearsals, and at least a few static fire tests.
In fact, SpaceX has only performed a single three-engine static fire test with a fully outdated Super Heavy prototype. Before the company is confident in its booster design, it’s practically a certainty that one or more prototypes will be put through a lengthy test campaign that gradually evolves from igniting a few engines to igniting all 29 or 33 Raptors. That may actually be one of the reasons SpaceX appears to be retiring Booster 4 without a single static fire or flight test – performing all the requisite work may have ultimately been perceived as a dead-end when every future Starship and Super Heavy prototype will feature a heavily redesigned engine.
This is to say that much like Musk’s last few Starship OTF schedule estimates, May 2022 also appears to be extremely optimistic. Booster 7 could potentially be ready for cryogenic proof testing any day now but Ship 24 is still in five large pieces and probably at least a month from any form of test readiness. Still, there are some reasons for optimism. If Booster 7 actually does start basic proof testing this month or early next without waiting for its Raptor engines or for heat shield installation, SpaceX could theoretically complete cryoproofing, begin installing one or a few new Raptors at a time, and iteratively progress from static firing a few to all 33 engines as the engines are arriving at Starbase.
At a minimum, even if that razor-sharp test schedule isn’t possible, Booster 7 would at least have a month or so of extra testing over Ship 24, minimizing the disproportionate amount of testing each prototype will likely need to be qualified for flight. Unlike Booster 4, Ship 20 has completed several static fires and cryoproofs without any apparent issue.
For now, SpaceX continues to prepare Ship 24 sections for stacking and appears to be buttoning up Booster 7, which could easily be ready to roll out for basic testing within a few weeks – and maybe sooner.
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
