News
SpaceX Starship website spotted ahead of Elon Musk’s June rocket update
It appears that SpaceX is preparing a dedicated website for its proposed Starship point-to-point transport system, potentially capable of transporting dozens of passengers anywhere on Earth in just 30-60 minutes.
Assuming this website is actually a prelude to a SpaceX reveal (it could be completely unrelated), it seems likely that Starship.com will go live sometime around CEO Elon Musk’s planned June 20th update on Starship and Super Heavy. Much like Starlink.com went live on the day of SpaceX’s first dedicated launch, the company may be ready to tease more substantial details and fleshed-out plans for its aspirational Starship airline.
Big Falcon Challenge
Regardless of the theoretical viability of SpaceX’s Earth-to-Earth transport aspirations or the company’s readiness to kick off the publicity for the service, the fact remains that maturing Starship/Super Heavy (formerly BFR) into a system with reliability approaching that of airliners will take at least 5-10 years, if not decades. The idea itself – using reusable rockets to transport customers anywhere on Earth in 30-60 minutes at a cost comparable to business class tickets – is undeniably alluring and theoretically achievable. However, the list of “iff” statements that must first be satisfied for is immense and full of an array of technological firsts, any one of which could be a showstopper.
The greatest challenge of affordable, reliable point-to-point transport relates directly to the need for affordability and reliability. Put simply, rockets are in many ways far more complex than modern airliners, requiring margins of design and error and that would make commercial aircraft engineers blush. Modern FAA regulations currently expect manufacturers and operators to design, build, and fly passenger aircraft such that the chances of catastrophic failure (generally a fatal crash and total hull loss) average one in one billion flight hours. That may sound downright unachievable, but modern airliners routinely reach levels of reliability measured in hundreds of millions of flight hours between loss-of-life failures.
The best records of rocket reliability are currently held by Ariane 5 and Atlas V, reaching success streaks without catastrophic failure of 86 launches and 81 launches, respectively. It’s difficult to compare airliners and rockets, as rockets feature multiple stages and are typically only active for 30-90 minutes. Under the generous and inaccurate assumption that the average Ariane 5 mission accounts for 90 minutes of “flight time”, the most statistically reliable launch vehicle ever built is roughly 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 times less safe than the FAA’s present-day certification requirements. It would be more accurate to compare the distance traveled per catastrophic failure, but that would still indicate that the proven safety record of launch vehicles is perhaps 20,000 to 200,000 times worse than that of modern passenger aircraft.
Extreme reusability: extreme reliability?
Additionally, most modern rockets are expended, although SpaceX is doing everything it can to flip that equation. The only conceivable way to sustain a real commercial market for suborbital, hypersonic passenger transportation – aside from guaranteeing that passengers are unlikely to die – is to implement a level of rapid reusability that is entirely unprecedented in spaceflight. As it turns out, regardless of any Earthbound spaceliner ambitions the company may have, SpaceX’s ultimate mission is to accomplish precisely that goal, albeit in order to colonize Mars in a practical timeframe.
What has never explicitly been a part of SpaceX’s goal, however, is achieving that level of extreme reusability simultaneously alongside airliner-class reliability. Accepting high levels of risk has always been front and center to Elon Musk’s presentations on SpaceX’s BFR-powered Mars ambitions, with the CEO often indicating that chances of death would be quite high on early missions to the Red Planet. Of course, surviving and building a colony on Mars is a fair bit riskier than anything specifically centered around Earth and suborbital flight regimes.
All of this is to say that SpaceX may or may not succeed in its ambition of developing a spacecraft/booster that is as extraordinarily reliable as it is reusable, just as SpaceX may or may not publish a website dedicated to Earth-to-Earth Starship transport sometime next month. Stay tuned to find out on the next episode!
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
