News
SpaceX’s repaired Starship booster survives back-to-back cryoproof tests
SpaceX’s upgraded Starship booster has completed a second and third cryogenic proof test in rapid succession after undergoing repairs to fix damage suffered during the first round of testing.
Testing began almost immediately after SpaceX rolled the repaired Super Heavy booster back to the orbital launch site (OLS) on May 6th. After a quick installation on the pad’s stool-like launch mount and another day of systems checks and integration, Booster 7 charged headfirst into its first post-repair cryoproof on May 9th.
Instead of cautiously feeling out the repaired plumbing and header tank over a series of small tests, SpaceX immediately performed a full cryogenic proof (cryoproof) and filled Booster 7 to the brim with about 3000 tons (~6.6M lb) of liquid nitrogen (LN2) or a combination of LN2 and liquid oxygen (LOx). Standing about 67 meters (~220 ft) tall and 9 meters (~30 ft) wide, it took about two hours to fully fill Super Heavy’s tanks with the equivalent of one and a half Olympic swimming pools of cryogenic liquid.
As always, that liquid (well below –320°F or –196°C) rapidly chilled the booster’s 4mm (~0.16″) thick steel tanks to cryogenic temperatures, which then froze moisture directly out of the humid Texas air, coating almost all of Super Heavy’s exterior with a layer of frost and ice.
SpaceX began detanking Booster 7 soon after the fill process was completed. Thanks to plenty of insulated plumbing and well-insulated ground storage tanks, SpaceX is able to recover nearly all of the LN2 and LOx used during cryoproof testing, which helps avoid the hundreds of semi-truck delivers that would otherwise be required to replenish the tank farm after even a single test.
As if to demonstrate that, SpaceX proceeded to put Booster 7 through a whole new cryogenic proof test just two days later, on May 11th. Once again, Super Heavy was fully loaded with thousands of tons of liquid nitrogen and oxygen. Unlike Cryoproof #2’s immediate detank, SpaceX – judging by the frost levels – kept Booster 7 topped off for a good hour before detanking.
In a last-minute surprise, after fully detanking B7 at the end of Cryoproof #3, SpaceX refilled the booster’s liquid oxygen tank with a few hundred tons of LN2 or LOx. Once the rocket’s thrust section reached some degree of thermodynamic equilibrium, SpaceX remotely retracted and reconnected the orbital launch mount’s Super Heavy umbilical. The launch mount umbilical or ‘quick disconnect’ is responsible for connecting Super Heavy to the pad’s gas supplies, propellant storage, power, and communications. The test SpaceX completed after Cryoproof #3 may have been a rough simulation of one scenario Starship could easily face: a post-ignition launch abort. In other words, if an orbital Starship launch was aborted just before liftoff but after quick-disconnect retraction, could it quickly reconnect to the booster with zero human intervention?
In a scenario where a QD failed to reattach to a fully-fueled Super Heavy after a launch abort, the odds of a catastrophic fire or explosion would immediately shoot up to near-certainty. In moderate quantities, simultaneously venting gaseous methane and oxygen from the same rocket is risky but manageable. Venting hundreds – let alone thousands – of tons while trapped on the ground would amount to creating a multi-hour fuel-air bomb just waiting for a spark. Multiple Starship prototypes (SN4, SN10) have already been destroyed in part by the flammability of methane gas.
Combined with the completion of two full cryogenic proof tests in less than two days, it appears that Super Heavy B7’s repairs were extremely successful. Had the first post-repair cryoproof not gone more or less perfectly, it’s hard to imagine that SpaceX would have attempted or completed an almost identical test two days later. If the second cryoproof hadn’t been nearly perfect, it’s even harder to imagine that SpaceX would have accepted the risk involved in detaching Booster 7’s umbilical during the same test window.
On May 12th, SpaceX’s main pad crane attached a lift jig to Super Heavy B7, implying that it will likely be removed from the orbital launch mount in the near future. If the repaired booster aced its tests, SpaceX’s next step would likely be Raptor engine installation and the start of static fire testing. It’s unclear if SpaceX wants to install all 33 engines at once or begin with a small handful. It’s also unclear if SpaceX will return Booster 7 to Starbase’s production facilities to finish Raptor, heat shield, grid fin, and aerocover installation.
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
