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.
News
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.
A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.
The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.
Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.
“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.
According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.
“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.
Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.
However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.
To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.
That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.
News
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems.
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report.
While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.
In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.
According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”
Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.
Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line.
News
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, coding shows
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, one of which is widely requested by owners and fans, and another that it has already started to make on some trim levels of other models within the lineup.
The changes appear to be taking effect in the European and Chinese markets, but these are expected to come to the United States based on what Tesla has done with the Model Y.
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
These changes in the coding were spotted by X user BERKANT, who shared the findings on the social media platform this morning:
🚨 Model 3 changes spotted in Tesla backend
• New interior code: IN3PB (Interior 3 Premium Black)
• Linked to Alcantara-style black headliner
• Mapped to 2026 Model 3 Performance and Premium VINs• EPC now shows: “Display_16_QHD”
• Multiple 2026 builds marked with… pic.twitter.com/OkDM5EdbTu— BERKANT (@Tesla_NL_TR) February 23, 2026
It appears these new upgrades will roll out with the Model 3 Performance and Tesla’s Premium trim levels of the all-electric sedan.
The changes are welcome. Tesla fans have been requesting that its Model 3 and Model Y offerings receive a black headliner, as even with the black interior options, the headliner is grey.
Tesla recently upgraded Model Y vehicles to this black headliner option, even in the United States, so it seems as if the Model 3 will get the same treatment as it appears to be getting in the Eastern hemisphere.
Tesla has been basically accentuating the Model 3 and Model Y with small upgrades that owners have been wanting, and it has been a focal point of the company’s future plans as it phases out other vehicles like the Model S and Model X.
Additionally, Tesla offered an excellent 0.99% APR last week on the Model 3, hoping to push more units out the door to support a strong Q1 delivery figure at the beginning of April.
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
