News
SpaceX installs new Starship on static fire test stand
SpaceX may be focused on preparing Starship S24 and Super Heavy Booster 7 for their potentially imminent orbital launch debut, but the rest of the company’s Starship factory isn’t just sitting around.
The laser focus on carefully testing Ship 24 and Booster 7 may have limited the effectiveness of Starbase rocket production, but the factory has continued to produce new ships and boosters. SpaceX has even conducted some limiting testing of a pair of prototypes meant to follow in the footsteps of S24 and B7. In mid-January, that process entered a new and more active phase as SpaceX transported Starship S25 from the factory to the launch pad.
The trip is not Ship 25’s first. Starship S25 first headed to SpaceX’s South Texas launch and test facilities on October 19th, 2022, shortly after the vehicle was fully assembled. Around three weeks of testing followed, and now Ship 25 is back for more.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Ship 25
The first round of tests was thorough and put Ship 25 through a pneumatic proof test, multiple cryogenic proof tests, and likely a few simulated thrust tests using six hydraulic rams.
“Ship 25 was removed from SpaceX’s other Starship test stand on November 8th, it was rolled back to Starbase’s Starship factory. Ship 25 first rolled to the launch site on October 19th and has since completed four visible tests. On October 28th, Ship 25 survived a pneumatic proof test that showed that its tanks were leak-free and capable of surviving flight pressures (roughly 6-8.5 bar or 90-125 psi). Three cryogenic proof tests followed on November 1st, 2nd, and 7th. The first cryoproof was likely just that – a test that pressurized Ship 25’s tanks and filled them with cryogenic liquid nitrogen (LN2) or a combination of liquid oxygen and LN2.
The next two tests likely took advantage of the customized test stand, which has been semi-permanently outfitted with a set of hydraulic rams that allow SpaceX to simulate the thrust of six Raptor engines while Starship’s structures are chilled to cryogenic temperatures and loaded with roughly 1000 tons (~2.2M lb) of cryogenic fluids. If a Starship can survive those stresses on the ground, the assumption is that it will likely survive similar stresses in flight.”
Teslarati.com – October 20th, 2022
As usual, SpaceX didn’t comment on the development or indicate how that initial proof testing had gone, but Ship 25’s January 14th, 2023 return to the launch site all but guaranteed that that testing had gone more or less according to plan. On January 17th, SpaceX lifted Ship 25 onto Starbase’s only Starship static fire test stand, further confirming that Ship 25 proof testing went to plan.
Soon after its November 2022 return to Starbase’s build site, six Raptor engines were moved into the High Bay and installed on Ship 25. The Starship’s aft was then likely buttoned up with a heat shield before it headed to the test site to begin its static fire test campaign. That campaign could tell us a lot about the status of Starship prototypes. To date, only two Ships have completed full six-Raptor static fire tests, and both took days, weeks, or months to build up to those six-engine milestones with multiple smaller tests. If Ship 25 were to skip those preliminary tests and immediately conduct a six-engine static fire, it would be a sign that SpaceX is significantly more confident in the current Starship design.
Booster 9
Ship 25 is believed to be paired with Super Heavy Booster 9, which recently finished its own round of proof tests. About two months behind Ship 25, Booster 9 rolled out of its Starbase assembly bay and headed to the launch site on December 15th, 2022. The Super Heavy prototype ultimately completed two partial cryogenic proof tests on December 21st and 29th, during which it was likely loaded with around a thousand tons of liquid nitrogen to simulate explosive liquid oxygen and methane propellant. Booster 9 then returned to Starbase’s factory on January 10th, 2023.
Assuming those tests went well, Raptor engine installation could begin at any moment. However, thanks to significant design changes and upgrades present on Booster 9, outfitting and testing this Super Heavy could take longer than usual. Many smaller changes are present, but the most significant by far is the addition of an upgraded version of Raptor. The engine’s combustion-related hardware is likely the same as the Raptor V2 engines present on Booster 7, Ship 24, and Ship 25. But the hardware used to steer each engine – called thrust vector control (TVC) – has been completely changed.
Instead of using a complex web of plumbing and hydraulic power units bolted to the side of Super Heavy, Booster 9’s 13 central Raptors will be electrically steered. That has allowed SpaceX to remove those power units (streamlining Booster 9’s exterior) and reduce the already rats nest of plumbing required to fuel, control, power, and steer dozens of high-performance rocket engines on one booster. SpaceX has been testing electric Raptor TVC for months at its McGregor, Texas development facilities, but it’s unclear if the new technology has progressed to the point that 13 upgraded engines are ready to be installed on Booster 9. In the meantime, SpaceX may install Booster 9’s fixed outer ring of 20 Raptor V2 engines – none of which gimbal or need new electric TVC hardware.
Once all 33 engines are installed, it’s likely that Booster 9 will be thoroughly tested to ensure that all 13 electrically-steered engines work well together before, during, and after numerous static fire tests. SpaceX will also need to verify that the batteries likely powering those new systems function as expected. During the peak stresses they will likely experience, the electric TVC could need to rapidly redirect more than 3000 tons (~6.6 million lbf) of thrust multiple times per second. The peak power required from Super Heavy’s batteries will likely be immense as a result.
For now, the start of Super Heavy B9’s own static fire test campaign could be months away and will have to wait until Starbase’s only orbital launch mount – currently occupied by Booster 7, Ship 24, and Starship’s first orbital launch campaign – is vacated. With that orbital launch debut unlikely to happen before March 2023, Booster 9 has plenty of time to relax inside Starbase’s Wide Bay while Ship 25 begins static fire testing at a separate stand.
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
