Connect with us

News

SpaceX stacks orbital Starship sections as Elon Musk teases June 20th event

SpaceX's orbital Starship prototype is starting to look much more like its renders. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal; SpaceX)

Published

on

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he will provide a public update on the development status of Starship and Super Heavy in an official presentation later this summer, possibly as soon as June 20th.

Meanwhile, SpaceX’s South Texas team have been busy at work on both Starhopper and a newer Starship, said by Musk to be the first orbit-capable prototype. In the last week, technicians have begun stacking several sections of the vehicle’s stainless steel hull, all fabricated and welded together side-by-side. On Thursday, May 9th, this progressed to the installation of the Starship’s first gently tapered nose section atop its cylindrical tank section. Likely the second- or third-to-last major stack before its aeroshell is assembled into one piece, the orbital prototype is starting to truly resemble a real Starship.

They grow up so fast…

CEO Elon Musk revealed SpaceX’s Mars colonization architecture back in September 2016 and has since provided design and development updates every 6-12 months. Between then now, Starship/Super Heavy (formerly BFR, fore-formerly ITS) has radically changed. Originally baselined with a diameter of 12 m (40 ft), an almost entirely carbon composite design, and a spaceship with bulky tripod fins/wings, SpaceX helped design, build, and test a full-scale liquid oxygen tank.

Six months after the tank was destroyed (likely intentionally) during testing, Musk announced in Sept. 2017 that ITS was now called BFR and would feature a leaner 9m (30 ft) diameter. He also revealed tentative plans to enlist BFR in a point-to-point Earth transportation scheme offering travelers access to almost anywhere on Earth in ~30 minutes. In September 2018, the design changed once more, gaining ~10m of height and three mobile tripod fins/wings/legs. Finally, just a few months after the 2018 update, Musk revealed that SpaceX was moving almost entirely away from carbon composites and would instead use stainless steel throughout BFR’s structure. BFR was also renamed to Starship/Super Heavy.

An overview of a range of proposed medium launch vehicles, including ABL Space's RS-1, Firefly's Beta, and Relativity's Terran. (Teslarati)
The change in scale and design between ITS, BFR, and BFR 2018 is significant. (Teslarati)
SpaceX’s latest stainless steel Starship is pictured here on the Moon and Mars. (SpaceX)

Episode 4: Revenge of the Steel

Given SpaceX’s breakneck pace of Starhopper and Starship development, it’s possible that Musk’s “probably June 20th” event is meant to correlate with a yet-unknown Starship or Starhopper milestone. Back in early January, Musk suggested that the first orbital Starship prototype could be “complete” as early as June. However, a few weeks later, Starhopper suffered a setback when its facade/nosecone toppled over and was irreparably destroyed.

Several months distant, it’s hard to actually say if that hardware loss has impacted SpaceX’s schedule much at all. Sans nose section, SpaceX instead conducted a number of wet dress rehearsals and successfully ignited Raptor and jumped the tethered Starhopper a few feet in early April, more or less right on schedule per a December 2018 Musk tweet.

At this point in time, it’s highly unlikely that the orbital Starship prototype will be truly complete just a month or two from now. Most notably, “completion” would require seven flight-ready Raptor engines, of which SpaceX is known to have only completed 3-4 in the last four months. Despite an apparent lack of Raptors for a June completion of the orbital prototype, it may actually be possible for SpaceX to complete (in a very rough sense) the main structure of the Starship.

Major progress has been made in the last few weeks and the orbital prototype is starting to look more and more like an actual Starship. Aside from finishing the vehicle’s propellant and header tanks and engine section/thrust structure, SpaceX still needs to install avionics, wiring, plumbing, cold-gas maneuvering thrusters, COPVs, access and umbilical ports and panels, an entire heat shield, its tripod wings/fins/legs, and more. At the same time, it’s unclear if SpaceX will attempt to send Starship to orbit on its own before the first Super Heavy booster prototype is complete, an even more massive undertaking ahead of the company.

Advertisement
On April 27th, SpaceX technicians stacked two subsections of Starship hull. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Three sections of orbital Starship become two. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal, May 6th)
On May 9th, technicians joined the above two sections into one monolithic piece of Starship. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
SPACESHIP!1!! (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

For now, all we can do is wait and watch SpaceX’s gloriously bizarre steel Starship prototype continue to grow, while Starhoppper prepares for untethered hops a few thousand feet to the east. Things could be worse!

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules

Published

on

Credit: Teslarati

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe

Published

on

Credit: Andre Thierig | X

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’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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know

Published

on

Credit: CNBC

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.

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.

Continue Reading