News
SpaceX backup Starship reaches full height after nosecone installation
SpaceX has installed another Starship’s nosecone, all but completing the second full-size prototype a matter of days before the first fully-assembled Starship’s risky launch debut.
Over the last two months, SpaceX has effectively put Starship number 8 (SN8) through an almost nonstop series of tests, completing at least four separate cryogenic proof tests, four Raptor engine static fires, and much more. The company’s South Texas team have also dodged an array of technical bugs; installed, plumbed, and wired what amounts to ~40% of Starship (the nose section) while fully exposed to the coastal elements; and even narrowly avoided a potentially catastrophic failure.
In spite of the many hurdles thrown up and delays resultant, CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that Starship SN8 is scheduled to attempt its 15-kilometer (~50,000 ft) launch debut as early as Monday, November 30th. Musk, however, does not see success as the most probable outcome.
Why, then, push to launch Starship SN8 when, in Musk’s own words, the probability of success is as low as “33%”? As previously discussed many times in the history of Teslarati’s BFR and Starship coverage, SpaceX’s attitude towards technology development is (unfortunately) relatively unique in the aerospace industry. While once a backbone of major parts of NASA’s Apollo Program moonshot, modern aerospace companies simply do not take risks, instead choosing a systems engineering methodology and waterfall-style development approach, attempting to understand and design out every single problem to ensure success on the first try.
The result: extremely predictable, conservative solutions that take huge sums of money and time to field but yield excellent reliability and all but guarantee moderate success. SpaceX, on the other hand, borrows from early US and German rocket groups and, more recently, software companies to end up with a development approach that prioritizes efficiency, speed, and extensive testing, forever pushing the envelope and thus continually improving whatever is built.
In the early stages of any program, the results of that approach can look extremely unusual and rudimentary without context (i.e. Starhopper, above), but building and testing a minimum viable product or prototype is a very intentional foundation. Particularly at the start, those minimal prototypes are extremely cheap and almost singularly focused on narrowing a vast range of design options to something more palatable. As those prototypes rapidly teach their builders what the right and wrong questions and design decisions are, more focused and refined prototypes are simultaneously built and tested.
Done well, the agile approach is often quite similar to evolution, where prototype failures inform necessary design changes and killing off dead-end strategies, designs, and assumptions before they can be built upon. In many cases, compared to cautious waterfall-style development, it will even produce results that are both better, cheaper, and faster to realize. SpaceX’s Starship program is perhaps the most visible example in history, made all the more interesting and controversial by the fact that it’s still somewhere in between its early, chaotic development phase and a clear path to a viable product.
On the build side of things, SpaceX has created a truly incredible ad hoc factory from next to nothing, succeeding to the point that the company is now arguably testing and pushing the envelope too slowly. As of November 2020, no fewer than eight full-size Starships and the first Super Heavy booster prototype are visibly under construction. Most recently, Starship SN9 was stacked to its full height, kicking off nosecone installation while still at the build site (unlike SN8). SN10’s completed tank section is likely ready to begin flap installation within the next few days, while Starship SN11 is perhaps a week or two behind that. Additionally, large tank sections of Starships SN12, SN13, SN14, SN15, and (most likely) SN16 are already completed and have all been spotted in the last few weeks.
Some ~90% of the above work was likely started after Starship SN8 first left the factory and rolled to the launch pad on September 26th. In many regards, SN8 has been the first to reach multiple major milestones, largely explaining the relatively plodding pace of its test program compared to SN4, SN5, and SN6.
Ultimately, SN9’s imminent completion – effectively a superior, more refined copy of SN8 – means that Starship SN8’s utility to SpaceX is rapidly deteriorating. The company would almost assuredly never skip an opportunity to learn, meaning that there’s no plausible future in which SN8 testing doesn’t continue, but that doesn’t mean that SpaceX can’t turn its risk tolerance to 11. In essence, accept a 67% (or higher) chance of Starship SN8’s violent destruction but learn as much as possible in the process. As long as good data is gathered, SN8’s launch debut will be a success for Starship whether the rocket lands in one or several pieces.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
