News
SpaceX just blew up a Starship tank on purpose and Elon Musk says the results are in
Before dawn on January 10th, SpaceX technicians and engineers intentionally blew up a miniature Starship tank in order to test recently-upgraded manufacturing and assembly methods, likely to be used to build the first Starships bound for flight tests and orbit.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk quickly weighed in on Twitter later the same day, revealing some crucial details about the Starship tank test and effectively confirming that it was a success. While somewhat unintuitive, this is the second time SpaceX has intentionally destroyed largely completed Starship hardware in order to determine the limits of the company’s current methods of production and assembly.
Most notably, on November 20th, SpaceX is believed to have intentionally overpressurized the Starship Mk1 prototype in a very similar – albeit larger-scale – test, destroying the vehicle and sending its top tank dome flying hundreds of feet into the air. It’s generally believed that SpaceX (or perhaps even just Musk) decided that Starship Mk1 was not fit to fly, leading the company to switch gears and deem the prototype a “manufacturing pathfinder” rather than the first Starship to fly – which Musk had explicitly stated just a few months prior.
Bopper (Baby StarPopper) this morning after the overpressure event at SpaceX Boca Chica. ??@NASASpaceflight https://t.co/nCG7E9XtKM pic.twitter.com/PRTDQvvlRh— Mary (@BocaChicaGal) January 10, 2020
Dome to barrel weld made it to 7.1 bar, which is pretty good as ~6 bar is needed for orbital flight. With more precise parts & better welding conditions, we should reach ~8.5 bar, which is the 1.4 factor of safety needed for crewed flight.— Buff Mage (@elonmusk) January 10, 2020
Instead, Starship Mk1 suffered irreparable damage during its pressurization test and was rapidly scrapped in the weeks following, although several segments were thankfully salvaged – perhaps for use on future prototypes. Along those lines, it can arguably be said that the results from the mini Starship tank’s Jan. 10 pop test have paved the way for SpaceX to build the first truly flightworthy Starship prototypes – potentially all the way up to the first spaceworthy vehicles.
Hours after the test, Musk revealed that the Starship test tank failed almost exactly where and how SpaceX expected it would, bursting when the weld joining the upper dome and tank wall failed. Critically, the tank reached a maximum sustained pressure of 7.1 bar (103 psi), some 18% over the operating pressure (6 bar/87 psi) Musk says Starship prototypes will need to be declared fully capable of orbital test flights. In other words, given the tank’s size, it survived an incredible ~20,000 metric tons (45 million lbf) of force spread out over its surface area, equivalent to about 20% the weight of an entire US Navy aircraft carrier.
Musk also revealed that SpaceX will require Starships to survive a minimum of 140% of that operating pressure before the company will allow the spacecraft to launch humans.
Some have less than generously taken to smugly noting that several modern spaceflight and engineering standards require that launch vehicle tankage be rated to survive no less than 125% of their operating pressure, while this test tank would be rated for less than 118% under identical conditions. However, this ignores several significant points of interest. First and foremost, the Starship test tank intentionally destroyed on January 10th was assembled from almost nothing – going from first weld to a completed pressurization test – in less than three weeks (20 days).
Second, all visible welding and assembly work was performed outside in the South Texas elements with only a minor degree of protection from the coastal winds and environment. Although some obvious tweaks were made to the specific methods used to assembly the prototype tank, it also appears that most of the welding was done by hand. For the most part, in other words, the methods used to build this improved test article were largely unchanged compared to Starship Mk1, which is believed to have failed around 3-5 bar (40-75 psi).
Additionally, it appears that almost all aspects of this test tank have smaller structural margins, meaning that the tank walls and domes are likely using steel stock that is substantially thinner than what was used on Starship Mk1. Nevertheless, thanks to the addition of continuous (single-weld) steel rings, a tweaked dome layout, and slightly refined welding, this test tank has performed anywhere from 20% to 200+% better than Starship Mk1 – again, all while coming together from scratch in a period of less than three weeks.
As Musk notes, with relatively minor improvements to welding conditions and the manufacturing precision of Starship rings and domes, SpaceX can likely ensure that Starships (and thus Super Heavy boosters) will be able to survive pressures greater than 8.5 bar (125 psi), thus guaranteeing a safety margin of at least 40%. Even a minor improvement of ~6% would give vehicles a safety margin of 125%, enough – in the eyes of engineering standards committees – to reasonably certify Starships for orbital test flights.
All things considered, it’s safe to assume that SpaceX is going to begin building and assembling Starship SN01 (formerly Mk3) hardware almost immediately. Given that this test tank took just 20 days to assemble, it’s safe to say that the upgraded prototype’s tank section could be completed in just a handful of weeks. Stay tuned for progress reports.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
