News
SpaceX's Elon Musk works through holidays on Starship's "most difficult part"
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he has been working through the holidays at the company’s Boca Chica facilities to get Starship’s “most difficult part” ready for the next-generation spacecraft’s next prototype and flight tests.
Known as tank domes or bulkheads, Musk says that the hardware is the most difficult part of building and assembly Starship’s primary structure, referring to the steel engine section, tanks, and pointed nose that comprise most of the spaceship’s body. Starship’s primary structure must stand up to the rigors of all aspects of flight, including highly-pressurized propellant tanks, extreme G-forces during launches, orbital reentry, and more.
It was never officially determined whether the failure was intentional or not but during the first Starship prototype’s (Mk1) last test campaign, the vehicle experience an overpressure event while being filled with liquid oxygen or nitrogen. Localized to the weld connecting the upper tank dome to Starship’s cylindrical tank section, the dome essentially sheared off at the weld and launched hundreds of feet into the air, sending a shockwave through the vehicle that crumpled many of its steel structures as if they were aluminum foil.
It’s likely that Starship Mk1’s failure was an intentional overpressure event, meaning that SpaceX may have purposely pressed the vehicle’s tanks beyond their design limits to determine how structurally sound they were. What is less clear is whether the rocket burst before or after reaching its theoretical design limit.
For reference, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket operates with its fuel and oxygen tanks pressurized to about 50 psi (3.5 atm) with localized pressures likely doubling or tripling near the bottom of both tanks during the first minute or two of launch. Some amateur back-of-the-envelope calculations from videos of Starship Mk1’s burst event suggest that it was pressurized to at least 60-75 psi (4-5 atm) at its upper tank dome, meaning that the pressure on its two lower domes and tank walls would have been even higher. If correct, those unofficial figures mean that Mk1 actually performed quite well considering the ramshackle facilities and unprecedentedly spartan methods used to fabricate and assemble it.
As such, Musk likely considers Starship’s tank domes the “most difficult part of [its] primary structure” in large part because of how difficult it is to make giant propellant tank domes simultaneously light and strong. Musk has previously implied that Starship Mk1 was more 200 tons (450,000 lb) empty while the ultimate goal for the spacecraft’s empty weight is closer to 120 tons, and a large portion of that weight savings will likely have to come from making its tank domes as light as possible.
In line with that educated speculation, the last month or so of SpaceX’s Starship work in Boca Chica, Texas has been marked by a distinct focus on building tank domes. In fact, Musk himself tweeted that he had worked all night with SpaceX engineers in Boca Chica in a bid to get dome production ready for Starship’s Mk3 prototype, the first Super Heavy hardware, and many more rockets to come.
Prior to Musk’s tweet, a Starship tank dome was actually shipped all the way from Florida to Texas and arrived earlier this month. Meanwhile, technicians have been briskly building up an additional dome using what appears to be a different method of integration involving new parts. SpaceX is currently attempting to weld Starship’s tank domes together from several dozen pre-formed sheets of stainless steel.
The sheets of steel assembled into the dome Musk showed on December 27th likely arrived in Boca Chica on December 13th, implying that SpaceX has managed to complete the majority of the first dome prototype – using a new process – in barely two weeks.
After SpaceX lifted the partially-completed dome off one of its custom assembly jigs, workers almost instantly began staging new sections of steel, beginning the process of integrating yet another tank dome – now likely the fourth on-site in Boca Chica. Meanwhile, at a nearby section of SpaceX’s Boca Chica production facilities, yet another dome was visible on the 28th. In short, SpaceX should soon have more than enough tank domes to complete the next Starship prototype – said to be a significantly improved and refined design compared to Mk1.
Known as Starship Mk3 (or Starship SN01), Musk says that the rocket – currently just a miscellaneous collection of separate parts – could (“hopefully”) be ready for its first flight as soon as February or March 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
