News
SpaceX’s Starship rocket just breathed fire for the first time (and survived)
SpaceX’s Starship rocket is a step closer to flight after the fourth full-scale prototype successfully fired up its high-performance Raptor engine for the first time and survived the ordeal.
By far the biggest technical milestone SpaceX’s Starship program has passed since its creation, the Starship serial number 4 (SN4) prototype’s May 5th static fire was just the latest in a series of rapid-fire tests completed over the last several days. The ship’s journey began back in late March when SpaceX technicians began integrating the first sections of its steel hull. Less than a month later, SpaceX officially completed Starship SN4’s tank and engine section – missing only a nosecone and header tanks – and rolled the rocket to the launch and test pad on April 23rd.
Barely two days later, Starship SN4 entered the testing phase, passing what CEO Elon Musk described as an “ambient pressure test” used to verify the structural integrity of the rocket’s propellant tanks with harmless nitrogen gas. Less than a day after that pressure test was completed, SpaceX kicked off a “cryogenic proof test” with the Starship – the same test that destroyed three full-scale prototypes in the five months prior.
In the early morning of April 26th, Starship SN4 thus became the first full-scale prototype to pass (and survive) a cryogenic proof test, in which the ship’s normal liquid oxygen and methane was replaced with similarly frigid but non-explosive liquid nitrogen. According to Musk, SN4 was only pressurized to 4.9 bar (~70 psi), quite a distance away from the ~8.5 bar needed for safe orbital flight but reportedly more than enough to perform a small flight test.
Of course, Starship SN4 would first have to complete a bevy of additional tests – all arguably riskier than the cryogenic proof test it was the first to pass. That second, more challenging phase of testing began six days later on May 2nd.
After some limited fueling effectively marking Starship SN4’s first partial wet dress rehearsal (WDR), SpaceX aborted the first test attempt on May 2nd. On May 3rd, Starship SN4 was successfully loaded with propellant once more and wound up performing what is known as a spin prime test with its lone Raptor engine. Over the course of a few hours, SpaceX then recycled (and rechilled) the ship’s methane propellant and successfully performed a preburner test, igniting two gas generators that spin up Raptor’s turbines and eventually mix in the combustion chamber.
Less than 24 hours later, SpaceX turned Starship SN4 around for the grand finale – an actual Raptor ignition test, also known as a static fire. Per NASASpaceflight’s unofficial livestream of the event, made possible thanks to local resident BocaChicaGal, Starship ignited its Raptor engine – a historic first for the launch vehicle program – at 8:57pm CDT on May 5th (01:57 UTC, May 6). Musk confirmed just a few hours after that the ignition test – lasting about 3 seconds – had been completed successfully.
With that crucial milestone now behind it, Starship SN4 – perhaps pending an additional test or two – should effectively be clear to begin preparations for a 150m (500 ft) hop test later this month. Almost entirely contingent upon receiving a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launch license, that process could be finished tomorrow or take several days – or even weeks – to complete. Starship already has landing legs installed and wont need a nosecone for such a short and slow hop, but SpaceX may also need to install some kind of attitude control system (likely gas thrusters) before SN4 can safely fly.
Stay tuned for updates as we learn more about when a full-scale SpaceX Starship is scheduled to fly for the first time.
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
