News
SpaceX tests Starhopper’s maneuvering thrusters ahead of inaugural flight test
Late at night on July 22nd, SpaceX’s South Texas team of technicians and engineers were busy testing a small but critical component of Starhopper, a testbed and low-fidelity Starship prototype meant to attempt its first untethered flight test as early as July 24th.
Monday evening’s testing centered around Starhopper’s cold gas nitrogen thrusters, multi-nozzle assemblies that appear to have quite literally been taken off of flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters. For Starhopper, they will act in a similar – albeit significantly reduced – fashion, serving to control the giant steel prototype’s attitude and augment its lone Raptor engine’s own thrust vectoring (i.e. steering) capability.
Although SpaceX has never released official numbers for the thrust of the cold gas thrusters used on Falcon 9 boosters and upper stages, it’s safe to say from their performance that the low-efficiency nitrogen thrusters produce roughly 5 kN (~1100 lbf) of thrust, perhaps up to 10+ kN. For an almost empty Falcon 9 booster, this translates to extremely rapid (sub-10s) flip maneuvers during return-to-launch-site (RTLS) landings.
At the same time, Falcon boosters have two sizes of cold-gas thrusters, with much larger high-performance (>10 kN) pods – located on the larger of the booster’s two raceways – focused on settling the rocket’s propellant after recovery-related coast periods. A duo of smaller 3-axis pods situated on the outside of the interstage serve as true attitude control system (ACS) thrusters, precisely pointing, flipping, and orienting boosters during vacuum operations and partially augmenting grid fin control authority during the late stages of landings. Despite their much smaller size, they still pack an impressive punch and are famous for almost saving tipping Falcon boosters during early (failed) landing attempts.
Starhopper, meanwhile, is dramatically larger than the Falcon 9 and Heavy boosters its tacked-on ACS thruster pods were designed for. It’s hard to know for sure but safe estimates peg the testbed’s dry mass somewhere around 50-75 metric tons (110,000-165,000 lb) thanks to the thick steel it was constructed out of. In other words, Starhopper likely weighs at least twice as much as an empty Falcon 9 booster (~25 metric tons).
To alleviate this mismatch, SpaceX arrived at a hilariously simple and cheap solution: install double the number of grave-robbed Falcon 9 thruster pods on Starhopper and voila! It was that duo of thruster pod pairs that were tested on July 22nd, visibly producing four distinct jets of pressurized nitrogen gas. Whenever Starhopper gets to hopping, those ACS thrusters should help the rocket precisely control its rotation, attitude, and – to a lesser extent – translation, hopefully helping to ensure a successful inaugural hover and divert test.
Scheduled to occur no earlier than Wednesday, July 24th, SpaceX plans to deconflict Cargo Dragon’s CRS-18 launch and Starhopper’s hover test, meaning that they will not happen simultaneously. In the ~70%-likely event that bad Florida weather delays CRS-18 to Thursday, July 25th, the road before Starhopper will be clear for an attempted hover on the 24th. Additionally, also reported first by NASASpaceflight.com, the test is expected to involve a divert, meaning that Starhopper will lift off, hover roughly 20m (65 ft) off the ground, and then carefully travel a few hundred feet East to a recently-constructed concrete pad for a soft landing.
Note they will want to deconflict with CRS-18, so if that launch is still on (dodgy weather) then perhaps hours before, or after launch? OR, *personal wish!!* go from CRS-18 webcast and then pad cameras at Boca Chica on the SpaceX webcast! ?➡️?— Chris B – NSF (@NASASpaceflight) July 23, 2019
This divert was tacitly confirmed by the arrival of a robotic transport mechanism, already used once before to move Starhopper from its build site to the launch pad. If the divert goes as planned, the transport equipment will be used to return Starhopper to its spartan launch mount and ground support equipment (GSE) umbilicals.
If Starhopper survives and Raptor SN06 performs nominally, it’s all but certain that the testbed rocket will be put through a series of increasingly ambitious test flights over the coming months – at least before SpaceX’s first higher-fidelity “Mk 1” Starship prototypes begin their own flight tests. According to CEO Elon Musk, those Starship test hops and flights could begin as few as 2-3 months from now – September or October 2019.
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
