News
SpaceX Texas test HQ fires up a dozen Falcon, Starship rocket engines in six hours
Though it often falls under the radar relative to SpaceX’s high-profile Boca Chica Starship hub, another even more important Texas outpost appears to be busier than ever testing the rocket engines and boosters instrumental to all SpaceX operations.
Famous for occasionally supporting half a dozen or more rocket tests on busy days, SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facilities showed off exactly that kind of rapid-fire activity on Friday, March 19th, flexing the sheer variety and volume of rocket hardware liable to pass through its gates.
Located on the grounds of a former US military explosives factory, SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas rocket development and test facilities have been testing Falcon, Dragon, and Starship parts and supporting each program’s development for a decade and a half. After being fabricated and assembled in Hawthorne, California, virtually every single active propulsive component SpaceX has ever flown has spent some amount of time in McGregor.
For boosters, every cold gas maneuvering thruster is qualified in Texas before being sent back to Hawthorne for final installation. Each stage’s nine Merlin 1D engines are individually tested in McGregor, shipped back to Hawthorne, installed on a booster, shipped back to McGregor, and static fired as an integrated first stage before SpaceX deems a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy core ready for flight. The exact same process (separate engines and thruster qualification followed by integrated vehicle testing) is performed with Falcon upper stages and their Merlin Vacuum engines, as well as all Dragon spacecraft and their Draco (and SuperDraco) thrusters. The same is true for the two Raptor engine variants and cold-gas thrusters that power Starship.
On March 19th, nearly all of those different engines and vehicles – and the separate stands used to test each of them – came together for an exceptionally busy day at McGregor. According to local resident Reagan (@bluemoondance74), who lives within earshot of SpaceX’s extraordinarily busy rocket testing HQ, at least five unique tests were performed in just six hours – all but one of which was squeezed into the last ~125 minutes.
Around 2:40 pm, an unknown test – possibly a Merlin Vacuum (MVac) or Merlin 1D (M1D) engine – kicked off the salvo. Four hours later, SpaceX completed arguably the most significant test of the day, firing up the first Falcon Heavy center core to head to McGregor in almost 24 months. Assuming that static fire was a success, the booster will be inspected, have its tanks cleaned, and be shipped to Florida to complete the first stage of SpaceX’s fourth Falcon Heavy rocket for a launch as early as July.
An hour and a half after the Falcon Heavy center core’s static fire, SpaceX fired up a Raptor engine (either a sea level or vacuum variant), followed by another likely M1D or MVac test just minutes later. Finally, at 8:52 pm, SpaceX ignited a second Raptor engine at an entirely separate vertical test stand (known as the tripod stand) recently modified to support testing Starship engines in a more flight-like configuration. Altogether, assuming no repeated tests, SpaceX effectively tested a booster and 13 (9+4) rocket engines in a little over six hours.
More likely than not, one or both of those Raptors will soon find themselves on a Starship or Super Heavy prototype in Boca Chica. The M1D and/or MVac engines will assuredly find a place on a future Falcon booster or upper stage. The Falcon Heavy center core (B1065 or B1066) is scheduled to launch as early as July 2021 and will be the first of its kind to fly in an intentionally expendable configuration. Another Falcon Heavy center core – possibly B1067 – will likely also find itself in McGregor within the next few months for the rocket’s fifth launch, scheduled no earlier than (NET) October 2021.
All told, SpaceX’s McGregor rocket testing HQ is about as busy as – if not busier than – it’s ever been as the company works towards an unprecedentedly ambitious 48-launch 2021 manifest, builds and flies at least four Dragon spacecraft, and pursues an even more ambitious effort to begin orbital Starship launches this summer. Quieted away in rural Texas, McGregor may largely go unnoticed but its infrastructure remains as integral as ever for virtually every single SpaceX project – past, present, and future.
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
