News
SpaceX rolls Super Heavy booster to orbital launch mount
For the third time in four months, SpaceX has rolled the first potentially flightworthy Super Heavy booster towards Starbase’s orbital launch mount.
Combined with a large crane – fitted with a jig solely used to lift boosters – moving to a spot just beside the booster, it’s clear that SpaceX is preparing to reinstall Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) on the orbital launch mount. In the context of its unusual history, though, what happens next to the first more or less finished prototype of the largest rocket booster ever built is less clear.
After a shockingly quick assembly over the course of six summer weeks, Super Heavy Booster 4 rolled out of Starbase’s ‘high bay’ facility and headed to the nearby orbital launch complex, where it was installed on a custom ‘mount’ designed to support booster testing and orbital launches. It’s now clear that during that early August photo opportunity and fit test, Booster 4 was nowhere close to finished. Nor, apparently, was it anywhere close to complete one month later when it returned to the orbital pad for the second time after another few weeks of work back at the high bay.
Three months (almost 14 weeks or 100 days) after the Super Heavy prototype’s second trip to the pad, SpaceX has yet to attempt to put the booster through a single proof test. There also appears to be a significant amount of work left to finish installing external ‘aerocovers’ and a heat shield meant to enclose all 29 of its Raptor engines. In the three-year history of Starbase, there isn’t a single prototype of the roughly two-dozen SpaceX has built, tested, and even flown that’s spent even half as long as Super Heavy B4 between apparent structural completion and its first test. Perhaps the fact that Booster 4 is a first-of-its-kind pathfinder explains SpaceX’s uncharacteristic sluggishness or reluctance to actually test the rocket.
In every other instance, SpaceX’s approach to Starship development has been to move incredibly quickly, build a large number of prototypes, and rapidly test those prototypes – often resulting in catastrophic failures. Data is gathered from those failures (SN1, SN3, SN4, SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and half a dozen smaller test tanks serve as examples), changes are made, and then the new and improved prototypes that follow repeat the process until SpaceX arrives at a successful design.
Super Heavy B4’s circuitous path has been almost nothing like those of its predecessors. That could also be partly explained by the unavailability of a stand or facilities capable of truly proof testing a Super Heavy, which necessitates a supply of around 3200 tons (7M lb) of liquid nitrogen (LN2; for a cryogenic proof test with full tanks), another 3200 tons of a combination of liquid methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LOx), and the ability to ignite – and survive – as many as 29 to 33 Raptor engines. The suborbital stands SpaceX has used to proof Starships and even Super Heavy Booster 3 don’t even have half the storage capacity required to fully test a booster and the mounts and their surroundings would likely be catastrophically damaged or destroyed by the thrust and blast created by dozens of Raptors.
Still, SpaceX could have theoretically put Booster 4 through a partial cryoproof and maybe fired up as many as nine Raptors at once – not a replacement for full proof testing but still plenty to ensure Super Heavy’s structural integrity and gather invaluable data on clustered Raptor performance. Instead, of course, Super Heavy B4 has sat at Starbase’s former landing zone for more than three months while teams removed engines, reinstalled engines, half-installed a full Raptor heat shield; and installed two of six or seven ‘aerocovers’ needed to protect heat exchangers, racks of pressure vessels, and hydraulic systems installed on the booster’s aft.
This is all to say that from the outside looking in, Booster 4’s path towards testing and flight has been almost entirely different from that of any other Starship prototype. While still quick in comparison with other launch vehicle development programs, relative to other Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, the rate of B4 progress has been far slower – strongly implying that something is seriously wrong with the booster, that SpaceX no longer feels that partial testing is worth the effort, that finishing Booster 4 just hasn’t been a priority for several months, or some combination of the above.
What that ultimately means is that it’s almost impossible to predict what Super Heavy B4’s future holds beyond the clear evidence that SpaceX will soon reinstall to reinstall it on an orbital launch mount that’s much closer to completion than it was the last time B4 was installed. At this point, it’s just as likely that the booster’s third launch mount installation will just be another mechanical fit test, though the hope is that it will kick off full-scale pneumatic and cryogenic proof testing. It could even culminate in the static fire of some or all of its 29 Raptor engines, which have been installed for several months.
A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.
Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.
Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.
In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.
The charging documents state:
“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”
Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”
The documents outlined this:
“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘
Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.
Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.
Tesla shocked with its quarterly delivery report yesterday by reporting it delivered 480,126 vehicles in the second quarter of 2026, a 25 percent year-over-year jump that crushed Wall Street estimates of roughly 400,000–408,000 units. Production reached 451,758, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority.
The result ended two years of annual delivery declines and drew down inventory, signaling demand that outpaced earlier production.
Tesla bears had long warned that the expiration of the U.S. federal EV tax credit would hammer demand. Without the $7,500 incentive, they argued, American buyers would balk at higher effective prices, leading to a sharp slowdown.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
That narrative has not played out as predicted. While U.S. EV sales faced broader headwinds, Tesla’s global numbers held firm, underscoring the company’s ability to offset domestic pressure through other levers.
There are several plausible factors that explain Tesla’s strength during this quarter. Let’s take a look at them:
Rising Gas Prices
Rising gas prices provided a powerful tailwind, especially in the U.S.
Geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran conflict pushed fuel costs higher earlier in the year, amplifying the lifetime savings of electric vehicles. Even as oil prices later moderated, the psychological and financial impact lingered, encouraging fleet operators and private buyers to accelerate EV purchases. European sales rebounded sharply, helping drive the quarter’s outperformance.
Full Self-Driving Adoption
Advances in Full Self-Driving (FSD) supervised software also appear to have boosted appeal. Tesla expanded FSD availability in select European markets and continued refining the system.
No complaints from me because I finally got to enjoy this drive on FSD; I usually like to manually drive down this mountain https://t.co/RBFniRPSR0 pic.twitter.com/XQ5sOpN1Yg
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
For tech-oriented buyers, the promise of future autonomy and enhanced driver-assistance features adds perceived value beyond the car itself. This differentiation helps Tesla stand out in a crowded market where competitors focus primarily on hardware and basic range.
Pricing Strategy, Affordable Configurations
Tesla’s offerings and its pricing strategy during Q2 further stimulated demand. Tesla introduced lower-cost versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, widening accessibility without sacrificing core margins.
These moves countered affordability concerns and attracted buyers who had been waiting on the sidelines. Combined with attractive financing and leasing options, the pricing strategy converted interest into actual orders more effectively than many analysts expected.
Broad European Recovery
Supported by government incentives, corporate fleet electrification, and easing political headwinds around CEO Elon Musk, Tesla was supplied additional momentum through stronger registration numbers throughout Europe.
Strong exports from the Shanghai Gigafactory and a production ramp at Giga Berlin ensured supply met this resurgent demand. Corporate buyers, in particular, accelerated transitions to EVs to meet sustainability targets, providing a steady volume base.
These elements created a virtuous cycle that delivered the strong deliveries report. While bears correctly flagged the loss of the U.S. tax credit as a risk, Tesla’s diversified playbook demonstrated that it could remain resilient against those headwinds. The Q2 beat suggests the company remains adept at navigating shifting market conditions, even as competition intensifies.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise
