News
SpaceX preps Starship, Super Heavy for another week of Raptor testing
SpaceX continues to work around the clock to prepare its latest Starship and Super Heavy booster prototypes for another week of testing – likely focused on firing up the Raptor engines installed on each vehicle.
Known as Booster 7 and Ship 24, SpaceX has been slowly testing both prototypes for approximately four months, beginning in April and May, respectively. Only in early August did the company cautiously begin attempting to ignite their Raptor engines as part of a process known as static fire testing – by far the most difficult and important part of qualifying both vehicles for flight.
Thanks to progress made in 2021, SpaceX already has significant experience testing an earlier orbital-class Starship prototype on the ground, but the process of testing Ship 24 is still fresh and unfamiliar for a number of reasons. For Booster 7, the challenges are even greater.
On top of major design changes made to Starship and Super Heavy over the last year as SpaceX continues to refine the rocket, the company also developed a substantially different version of its Raptor engine. Compared to Raptor V1, Raptor V2 almost looks like a new engine and can produce around 25% more thrust (230 tons versus 185 tons). SpaceX has also tweaked how the engine operates, particularly around startup and shutdown, further weakening the value of past experience testing Raptor V1 and V1.5 engines on Ship 20 and Boosters 3 and 4.
In other words, with Ship 24 and Booster 7 engine testing, it’s possible that SpaceX is effectively starting from scratch. Many aspects of testing – propellant conditioning, thermal characteristics, tanking, detanking, certain test stands – are likely mostly unchanged, but almost every aspect of a rocket is affected by its engines.
Before SpaceX began testing Raptor V2 engines on Starship and booster prototypes, it wasn’t clear if the changes between V1.5 and V2 would invalidate a lot of prior testing. After the start of Booster 7 and Ship 24 static fire testing, it’s now clear that a lot of that earlier work has to be redone. It’s also clear that despite some of the simplifications in Raptor V2’s design, operating the engine on Starship and Super Heavy is much harder get get right.
Since mid-July, SpaceX has completed around 15-20 ‘spin-prime’ tests between Ship 24 and Booster 7 – more of that kind of test than any other prototype in the history of Starbase has performed. Spin-prime tests flow high-pressure gas through Raptor’s pumps to spin them up without igniting anything. It’s unclear why so many of those tests are being done, what SpaceX is gaining from it, or why the company appears to have completely stopped conducting preburner tests (a more life-like spin-prime with partial combustion).
Regardless, eight weeks after the start of engine testing, Booster 7 has only performed three static fires (two with one engine, one with a max of three or four engines), and Ship 24 has only completed one static fire with two engines. Before either vehicle can be considered ready for flight, a day that could easily never come, each will likely need to conduct multiple successful static fires with all of their Raptor engines (6 on S24 and 33 on B7).
If the pace of Booster 7 testing doesn’t change, the vehicle could be months away from a full 33-engine static fire attempt – perhaps the single most important and uncertain test standing between SpaceX and Starship’s first orbital launch attempt. Ship 24’s path to flight readiness should be simpler, but it appears to be struggling almost as much.
According to CEO Elon Musk, “an intense effort is underway” to ensure that Super Heavy B7’s Raptor engines are well contained during anomalies, so that one engine violently failing won’t damage or destroy the booster, other engines, or the launch pad. That could certainly complicate the process of testing Booster 7, and it’s likely that SpaceX is taking some of the same actions to protect Ship 24.
In early September, after a partially successful Booster 7 static fire (its first multi-engine test) and numerous additional Ship 24 tests that failed to achieve ignition, SpaceX replaced engines on both vehicles. Booster 7 had one of 13 Raptor Center engines swapped out, while Ship 24 had one of its three Raptor Vacuum engines replaced.
On September 5th, SpaceX distributed a safety alert to Boca Chica’s few remaining residents, confirming that it wants to restart testing as early as Tuesday, September 6th. Especially as of late, that alert guarantees nothing, but it does at least open the door for SpaceX if Ship 24, Booster 7, and the positions of the stars happen to be in the right mood between 8am and 8pm CDT. Additional opportunities are available on September 7th, 8th, 9th, and 12th.
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
