News
SpaceX’s second Super Heavy booster might land in Mechazilla’s arms
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX could attempt to catch a Super Heavy booster out of mid-air with a tower-sized ‘Mechazilla’ robot as early as Starship’s second orbital launch attempt.
Speaking on Twitter just hours after SpaceX installed said Starship launch tower’s first arms, Musk has thankfully answered a question on the minds of many: how many prototype boosters must be expended? In a move that can be only described as unexpected, SpaceX revealed plans to fully expend its first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster pair in May 2021 FCC filings, confirming (or strongly implying) that no true recovery attempts would be made.
Instead, in what could be described as a quasi-orbital debut, SpaceX intends to launch the first two-stage Starship to an altitude of around 200-300 km (TBD). Like many Falcon boosters, Super Heavy will separate a few minutes after liftoff, flip around, and boost back towards the South Texas coast, where it will attempt a soft landing 20 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Reading between the lines of Musk’s latest info, depending on the results of that ocean landing attempt, SpaceX might attempt to catch the second flightworthy Super Heavy booster on the very next launch.
Heading towards a similar fate, Starship will continue onwards and upwards like a Falcon upper stage. Based on its FCC application, SpaceX seems to have implied that Starship will stop just short of true orbit – traveling slow enough to passively reenter Earth’s atmosphere before completing a full trip around the planet. Of course, it’s possible that SpaceX simply left out plans for an intentional deorbit burn, but it does make sense that the company might try to lock in safeguards for such an ambitious inaugural test flight.
In other words, if Starship were to fail during the ~80 minutes it would spend coasting in space, its launch trajectory design would more or less passively prevent a Russian roulette scenario reminiscent of China’s recent spate of uncontrolled reentries. The feats facing Super Heavy are thankfully a fair bit simpler, though Starship booster recovery does pose its own hurdles.
In an apparent effort to reduce risk, SpaceX intends to fully expend the first flightworthy Super Heavy (potentially Booster 4) and all 29 of its Raptor engines. There will be no attempt at all to land the booster or its one-of-a-kind engines at land or on a sea-based platform – partly because Elon Musk appears to have endeavored to entirely prevent the installation – and, perhaps, the design and assembly – of legs. Instead, in one of the eccentric executive’s less intuitive gambles as of late, SpaceX will entirely dispense of more than half a decade of experience landing 90+ Falcon boosters on legs to attempt to catch Super Heavy boosters out of the air with house-sized arms tacked onto a 145m (~475 ft) tall tower.
No different than a hypothetical landing with legs, Super Heavy will still have to boost back to land, coast, and fire up several Raptor engines for a final landing burn – only on tiny handle-like hardpoints and giant moving arms instead of legs and a concrete pad. If catching boosters eventually proves reliable enough to be a worthwhile reinvention of the wheel, the only apparent benefit of the approach will be a slight reduction in Super Heavy’s dry mass.
According to Musk, though, SpaceX might not have to wait long to find out just how viable a recovery method ‘Mechazilla’ really is and will “hopefully” attempt to catch Super Heavy Booster 5 (B5) after Starship’s second orbital launch attempt. Presumably, that attempt is contingent upon FAA approval and on Booster 4 successfully simulating a smooth, accurate landing in the Gulf, as even a minor issue during a catch attempt could catastrophically damage pad hardware that would take months to repair or replace.
For now, it’s almost impossible to say when Starship S20 and Super Heavy B4 will be ready for their orbital launch debut, as that now lies almost solely in the hands of the FAA. In theory, the FAA could complete environmental reviews and grant SpaceX a launch license as few as two or so months from now. In practice, SpaceX could be forced to sit and wait for at least 6-12 more months. Regardless, SpaceX has already begun assembling and staging sections of Ship 21 and Booster 5, so the company could be ready for an extremely rapid turnaround (and Mechazilla’s first catch attempt) after Starship’s orbital launch debut – whenever that may come.
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
