News
SpaceX Starbase construction takes priority as next orbital Starship, Super Heavy pair come together
As SpaceX teams slowly prepare the first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster for the next-generation rocket’s first full-stack launch, the company has simultaneously begun assembling a second ship/booster pair. However, it’s clear that orbital pad construction remains a priority.
Known as Ship 20 and Booster 4, the two stages of the first orbital-class Starship first arrived at the launch site in early August. Only eight weeks later has Starship S20 finally become the first of the pair to attempt and complete one of two crucial proof tests, opening the door for one or several Raptor static fires in the coming week or two. Meanwhile, Booster 4 has had all 29 of its Raptor engines installed, uninstalled, and reinstalled and twice been placed on and removed from Starbase’s orbital launch mount in the same time frame but has yet to attempt any proof testing.
Despite the apparent delays and challenges slowing Ship 20 and Booster 4’s test debuts and two plodding FAA reviews that appear all but guaranteed to preclude an orbital launch attempt in 2021, though, SpaceX has recently begun assembling a second two-stage Starship.
Save for Starhopper back in 2019, no Starship or Super Heavy prototype has spent nearly as long at the launch site without a single test as Ship 20 and Booster 4 have. To an extent, there have likely been some technical delays while assembling, outfitting, and working with two first-of-their-kind prototypes. Still, the difference between past vehicles like Starship SN15 and Super Heavy Booster 3 are so stark that some portion of the testing delays almost has to be a conscious decision made by SpaceX.
To be able to fully proof and static fire test Super Heavy B4, SpaceX first needs to plumb, wire, and outfit Starbase’s orbital launch mount and complete a majority of the orbital pad’s massive tank farm. However, the orbital pad and its many unfinished systems are situated just a thousand (~300m) east of the suborbital launch site and Starship test facilities, which are complete and ready for testing. To test a Starship at those facilities, SpaceX has to entirely clear the pad of personnel – now several hundred people at the peak of construction – for 6-12+ hours.
The implication is that SpaceX management effectively chose to rip off the bandage now rather than later, sacrificing timely testing of Starship S20 to allow a near-total focus on orbital pad construction and activation over the last ~8 weeks. It’s hard to say if that’s paid off but the fact that SpaceX has chosen this particular moment to begin assembling the next orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy suggests that a clearer plan is starting to come together.
B4/S20, meet B5/S21
Parts of Starship S21 and Super Heavy B5 have been floating around Starbase’s build site for weeks. There was a multi-week period, for example, where the site’s massive high bay was effectively unused – clearly a conscious choice given SpaceX’s history of Starship prototype production earlier this year and late last. Parts of Super Heavy B5 were likely ready for assembly (i.e. stacking) by mid to late August. The ‘mid bay’ used for Starship tank section assembly has been similarly underutilized for even longer – only recently accepting its first Starship S21 section after supporting assembly of the orbital pad’s final storage tank.
Instead, Booster 5 stacking began around September 15th. At the current rate of assembly, which has slowed down considerably in the last week, SpaceX’s second flightworthy Super Heavy could reach its full 69m (~225 ft) height as early as mid-October. Starship S20 likely won’t be far behind. Further, thanks to SpaceX’s preferred style of continuous improvement, Booster 5 and Ship 21 production already appear well on track to outpace Booster 4 and Ship 20. With B5, rather than installing a range of external equipment (avionics, wiring, plumbing) after assembly is finished, SpaceX appears to be completing some of those subsystems during stacking, potentially speeding up final assembly by 1-2+ weeks. With S21, SpaceX has begun outfitting the Starship’s nose cone with heat shield tiles far earlier in the assembly process than it did with S20.
Given that it has taken SpaceX the better part of a month to finish and spot-fix Starship S20’s heat shield since the prototype’s second trip to the test site, taking those lessons learned to heart and getting Starship S21’s heat shield installation right on the first try could cut weeks from final assembly.
In the meantime, after completing Ship 20’s first cryoproof test on September 29th, SpaceX will hopefully be able to kick off the first six-engine Raptor static fire test campaign within the next week or so. With any luck, the start of B5/S21 assembly also means that the orbital launch pad is nearly ready to support Super Heavy B4’s first proof tests, even if static fires with anything close to a full set of 29 Raptors appear to be weeks away. Regardless, it looks like it won’t be long before SpaceX will be juggling two pairs of orbital-class Starships and Super Heavy boosters.
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
