SpaceX has returned an upgraded Super Heavy booster to the factory after an unexpected explosion and fireball caused “minor” damage during testing.
CEO Elon Musk first revealed that the company would need to remove the rocket from Starbase’s orbital launch pad for inspections and repairs on July 13th, about a day and a half after the anomaly. On July 11th, during what may have been a partial wet dress rehearsal (WDR), a dispersed cloud of methane gas found an accidental ignition source and exploded with a force that at least one observer estimated was equivalent to several pounds of TNT. Several nail-biting hours of uncertainty followed, during which SpaceX attempted to empty Super Heavy Booster 7 of its propellant (and explosive potential) and regain control of the situation, while simultaneously trying to avoid stoking a fire that started at the pad.
With a heaping serving of luck, Booster 7 made it through the event (mostly) intact. Now SpaceX must take a close appraisal of the rocket and situation and decide how to proceed.
Musk, as always, has put his optimistic face forward on Twitter and in a direct response to Reuters. According to an email sent shortly after an early in-person post-anomaly inspection, Musk stated that Booster 7 could return “to the launch stand probably next week” – implying that any damage suffered was extremely minor. By the time Super Heavy was removed from the launch mount the next day (July 14th), however, it became clear that the situation wasn’t quite as optimal.
Instead, Booster 7’s aft engine section was clearly damaged, with some of the dozens of thermal protection panels enclosing 33 Raptor engines apparently torn off or knocked askew by the July 11th blast. Given the tight fit and relatively heavy-duty nature of some of those panels, deformation could easily damage some of the more sensitive plumbing and components on Raptor engines. The day prior, teams spent hours tearing out unexpectedly fragile components of Booster 7’s hidden aft heat shielding and even removed and replaced one of its Raptors in-situ.
More likely than not, all Raptor engines with minor damage can be repaired and reused on a future booster. The explosion may also give SpaceX invaluable data that can be used to improve the durability and performance of Raptor and Super Heavy’s heat shield. Nonetheless, a methodical inspection of Booster 7’s aft end could easily take a week or two. If more chronic damage is discovered or the whole aft heat shield or a large number of Raptors need to be removed and replaced, the hiatus could grow to a month or more.
Following Booster 7’s July 15th return to the Starbase factory, SpaceX appears to have begun removing more Raptor engines on July 17th, kicking off a phase that will hopefully be heavy on encouraging inspection results and light on substantial repairs. If it turns out that the Super Heavy prototype is mostly in great shape after such a violent anomaly, it would bode well for the rocket’s durability during future ground and flight testing. If it did not fare well, SpaceX may need to seriously reconsider whether Booster 7 is fit to support Starship’s orbital launch debut or even proceed into static fire testing.
Either way, SpaceX recently finished stacking Super Heavy Booster 8. If it’s made a priority, the newest prototype could be made ready to take over where Booster 7 left off within a few weeks. Alternatively, it could even join a repaired Booster 7 at the launch pad for basic proof testing while its predecessor attempts to restart its first static fire campaign. Simultaneously, Starship S24 is almost ready to begin its own static fire test campaign, guaranteeing an eventful and hardware-rich period at Starbase after several months of relative inaction.
SpaceX has 12-hour road closures likely meant for Ship 24 testing scheduled daily from Monday, July 18th to Thursday, July 21st.
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
