News
SpaceX begins installing new ‘Raptor 2’ engines on Super Heavy booster
SpaceX has begun installing new ‘Raptor 2’ engines on Super Heavy Booster 7 after the prototype completed a range of tests and returned to the company’s South Texas ‘Starbase’ rocket factory.
Earlier this month, SpaceX transported Booster 7 (B7) in the opposite direction, returning the 67-meter (~220 ft) tall rocket to Starbase’s orbital launch site (OLS) for the second time after it was forced to head back to the factory for repairs. Repairs completed, SpaceX dove headfirst into the process of verifying that the booster had been returned to full health and immediately filled its tanks to the brim with at least 3000 tons (>6.5M lb) of liquid nitrogen and oxygen – better known as a cryogenic proof test.
Less than 48 hours after completing its first post-repair test, Booster 7 sailed through another full cryoproof test without losing a beat. On May 13th, two days later, SpaceX attached a crane to Super Heavy B7 and removed it from the orbital launch mount before rolling the rocket back to Starbase’s build site on May 14th. Without official confirmation, which is increasingly rare, it was impossible to determine the results of the testing with certainty, but the speed of the process and Booster 7’s rapid launch mount removal made the two most extreme outcomes the most likely.
A quick return to the build site could have been explained by a significant vehicle failure or a major issue with SpaceX’s repair job – no point in continuing to test a vehicle that can’t be fully tested. On the exact opposite hand, a near-perfect test campaign in which all objectives were more or less achieved without major hiccups could also explain the quick return. In general, the evidence was in favor of the more optimistic explanation. Had a major issue been uncovered during the first post-repair cryoproof, it’s difficult to imagine that SpaceX would have completed the exact same test – in full less than 48 hours later.
However, SpaceX moved an in-situ Raptor engine installation stand towards Booster 7 and the orbital launch mount shortly before testing restarted, hinting – for the moment – that the company wanted to begin installing Raptor engines immediately after cryoproof testing. But mid-way through testing, the stand was moved back to its storage area and Super Heavy was instead removed from the mount and returned to the factory, adding a little uncertainty.
Concerns were immediately assuaged on May 17th when SpaceX was spotted moving Raptor engines from a production tent to the ‘megabay’ assembly building containing Booster 7. While the location of the new bay makes it difficult to peek inside from public viewpoints, preventing direct confirmation, it’s very likely SpaceX has begun installing new Raptor 2 engines on Super Heavy B7.
Additionally, confirming some of the more optimistic speculation about SpaceX’s decision to move Booster 7 back to build site, two of the three Raptor engines spotted on May 17th were also labeled “E26” and “E28.” Unless SpaceX’s engine numbering conventions have changed, the labels identify the engines as three of 20 ‘Raptor Boost’ engines that will ultimately populate the outer ring of Super Heavy B7’s aft end. More importantly, the installation of any Raptor Boost 2 (RB2) engines likely indicates that SpaceX has decided to install a full set of 33 Raptors on the booster before kicking off static fire testing.
To limit risk, SpaceX could have begun test-firing Booster 7 with just 1-3 Raptor engines installed and gradually added more as confidence grew. Instead, SpaceX appears to have accepted the added risk of losing 33 brand-new Raptor 2 engines in one fell swoop in return for the possibility of a much faster test campaign. If there are no major surprises during static fire testing, in other words, Booster 7 could be ready for flight far more quickly if the process begins with all 33 engines already installed. Installing Booster 7’s Raptors, heat shield, and aerocovers will be easier back at the build site.
Doing it all at once should also help prevent Booster 7 from suffering Booster 4’s fate and wallowing, unfinished, for months without completing a single useful test. If the gamble works, the first stage of a two-stage Starship could be ready for an orbital launch attempt in just a few months. If the gamble fails and Booster 7 is damaged, destroyed, or otherwise unable to pass the necessary tests, SpaceX will simply move on to Booster 8 sooner than later, having wasted less time on a more cautious Booster 7 test campaign.
It’s unclear how long it will take SpaceX to install all 33 Raptors, construct a heat shield around those engines, and finish buttoning up the rest of Booster 7. In an adjacent assembly bay, SpaceX appears to have nearly finished assembling a similarly upgraded Starship – Ship 24 – that’s first in line to ride Booster 7 into space. The company has also tentatively requested road closures for three 12-hour test windows on May 23rd, 24th, and 25th that either vehicle could use.
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
