News
SpaceX moves Super Heavy booster to make room for Mechazilla arm installation
For the second time, SpaceX has removed the first potentially flightworthy Super Heavy from Starbase’s orbital launch mount – this time to reportedly make room for the installation of a pair of huge ‘Mechazilla’ arms.
Designed with three primary purposes in mind, SpaceX has decided to outfit Starbase’s Starship launch tower – an almost 500 ft (150m) tall framework – with three massive arms that CEO Elon Musk has informally deemed “Mechazilla.” The first of those arms is a relatively simple swinging structure that has already been installed on the tower and outfitted with a giant claw-like appendage. Once a few more parts are installed and a bit more plumbing completed, that “quick disconnect arm” or QD arm will help stabilize Super Heavy during Starship installation and connect the massive reusable upper stage to the pad’s tank farm and power supplies while still on the ground.
The star of the show, though, has always been a pair of even larger arms that are hoped to one day all SpaceX to catch Super Heavy boosters and Starships out of the air.
Of course, those catcher arms – deemed chopsticks by SpaceX employees – have more than one purpose. Likely explaining why they were ever considered in the first place, SpaceX’s Starbase launch site – situated walking distance from the Gulf of Mexico on the South Texas coast – was always going to have to deal with extreme weather and high winds on a practically daily basis. Additionally, conditions that are already disruptive at sea level become a near-constant nightmare for vertical launch vehicle integration, where Starship and Super Heavy are effectively hollow cylinders with extensive surface areas that need to be regularly and precisely manipulated 50-150m (200-450 ft) above the ground.
Already, SpaceX regularly has to halt work involving cranes and boom lifts at Starbase. For Starbase (Boca Chica) to ever be able to support regular orbital Starship launches, let alone the dozens to hundreds per year Musk has hinted at, cranes were never going to be a viable long-term solution for the all-weather capabilities and rapid reusability SpaceX requires. In other words, whether SpaceX ever actually manages to routinely ‘catch’ the world’s largest rocket booster and upper stage in the future, a tower with giant arms (or some other exotic crane-free solution) was always going to be needed at Starbase.
Mauricio, thanks for the shout-out. I got some great feedback from folks and updated this diagram once more. Added another @NicAnsuini photo to show the scale of these parts! pic.twitter.com/o54hdBITfL— LunarCaveman (@LunarCaveman) September 16, 2021
This is all to say that the Starship launch tower’s massive pair of arms – (in)famous for Musk’s plans to catch rockets – have a more immediate and guaranteed purpose: lifting, stacking, and otherwise manipulating Starship and Super Heavy in almost all weather conditions. Using tiny hardpoints located just under Super Heavy’s grid fins and (once installed) under Starship’s forward flaps, the chopstick arms will be mounted on a carriage that will attach to rails installed on the exterior of three of the tower’s arms. A complex system of cables, winches, motors, and pulleys will then attach to that carriage, giving the carriage and its arms the ability to move up and down the tower.
In theory, that means that the launch tower arms will be able to drop down, grab Super Heavy off of a SpaceX transporter, and lift it onto the orbital launch mount. Then, once the quick disconnect arm has swung into place and ‘grabbed’ Super Heavy’s interstage to secure it, the main arms will again drop down, grab Starship off of another transporter, and raise the 50m (~165 ft) rocket around 100m off the ground to install it on top of Super Heavy. Finally, the QD arm can then connect Starship to the pad systems.
SpaceX has been working around the clock on those chopstick arms for months. However, thanks to information shared by a forum member who visited Starbase and briefly chatted with one of the SpaceX technicians on-site, they might be almost finished. According to the employee they spoke with, SpaceX planned to temporarily remove Super Heavy Booster 4 from the orbital launch mount to make room for Mechazilla chopstick arm installation as early as this weekend (now come and gone) or next week. Mere days later, SpaceX returned B4 to a transport stand and moved the booster out of the way. In other words, having already been proven right with Super Heavy, it appears that SpaceX really does intend to install the Starship launch tower’s chopstick arms and carriage as early as this week. Stay tuned for more!
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
