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.
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
