News
SpaceX Super Heavy booster assembly to start “this week,” says Elon Musk
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX is on track to begin fabricating Starship’s first Super Heavy booster prototype later “this week” and even revealed plans to hop that booster in the very near future.
Taller than an entire two-stage Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rocket, Super Heavy will be the largest and most powerful liquid rocket booster ever built by a factor of two (or more). Measuring ~70m (~230 ft) tall, Super Heavy will weigh at least 3500 metric tons (7.7 million lb) when fully loaded with liquid oxygen and methane propellant. According to Musk, SpaceX’s thrust target for the booster is 7500 tons (~16.5 million lbf) – significantly more than twice the thrust of the Saturn V and Soviet N-1 rockets and more than three times the thrust of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy.
On paper, while multiple times larger and more powerful, Super Heavy will be substantially simpler than Falcon Heavy thanks to its single-core. Built out of the same simple steel rings used to assemble Starship prototypes, Super Heavy should also be substantially cheaper to build than Falcon Heavy. Thanks to the experience SpaceX has already gained through months of Starship production, testing, and iterative improvement, initial Super Heavy prototype production could have a much smoother start, but several major challenges remain.
SpaceX has structured its Starship development program in such a way that the hardest technical challenges are generally first in line. Raptor engine testing came first in September 2016, although SpaceX did simultaneously build and test a full-scale carbon composite liquid oxygen – a material choice that was ultimately made redundant by the move to steel in late 2018. Up next, Starhopper served as a sort of proof of concept for the assembly of a flightworthy steel rocket in an unprotected open-air tent.
Starship Mk1 came next and was built as a full-scale prototype in similarly spartan conditions – but with much thinner steel. Mk1 ultimately failed prematurely, serving as a catalyst for SpaceX to substantially upgrade its South Texas rocket production capabilities, as well as its manufacturing techniques. Beginning in January 2020, SpaceX completed a rapid-fire series of tests with three stout tank prototypes and five full-scale Starship tank sections over the next seven months, passing multiple challenging pressure tests, wet dress rehearsals, Raptor static fires, and even a 150m (500 ft) hop.
The biggest challenges still facing Starship (5+ minute Raptor burns, skydiver-style landings, heat shield qualification, orbital launch/reentry/reuse) are mostly unique to the orbital spacecraft. In other words, with all SpaceX has already accomplished so far with Starship development, it could very well be ready to build a fully-capable Super Heavy prototype right now.
Along those lines, Musk says that there’s a chance that SpaceX will be ready to hop a Super Heavy booster prototype as early as October 2020 – less than two months after the first prototype enters production. Musk also noted that the biggest technical challenge facing Super Heavy is its extraordinarily complex ‘thrust puck’ – a metal structure that must host up to 28 Raptor engines and transfer all of their thrust through the rest of the rocket.
Per past comments, SpaceX will begin booster testing – possibly up to and including the first few orbital launch attempts – with as few Raptor engines as possible. For Musk’s aforementioned booster hop test, Super Heavy could reportedly hop with as few as two Raptors installed. Beyond those early tests and Super Heavy thrust puck development, perhaps only other challenge facing SpaceX is finalizing Raptor’s design to the point that dozens of engines can be built in short order. As of now, SpaceX has completed 40 Raptor prototypes in 18 months, while every Starship/Super Heavy pair will need as many as 34 engines apiece.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
