News
SpaceX prepares new Starship tank for explosive test after rapid construction
Over the last few weeks, SpaceX’s South Texas Starship team has been making progress at a pace unprecedented even for the famously agile rocket company and is moving full speed ahead to kick off a new series of explosive tests as early as this morning.
Ever since SpaceX’s original Starship Mk1 prototype spectacularly failed during a November 2019 pressure test, the company has been rapidly rearranging and modifying the development schedule for its next-generation full-reusable rocket. Be it a side effect or coincidence, SpaceX effectively began closing its Florida Starship factory a week after Mk1’s demise and even shipped some of its Florida-built Starship hardware to Texas in recent weeks. However, most of the Florida workforce (up to 80%) was reportedly redirected elsewhere in the company, avoiding layoffs.
Some portion may have even moved to Texas and joined SpaceX’s Starship Boca Chica facilities. Given just how aggressively SpaceX has been expanding its local facilities and preparing new hardware for the next round of improved Starship prototypes, it seems quite likely that the South Texas outpost did indeed receive an influx of skilled workers. Most recently, the company has demonstrated its rapidly growing expertise in the bizarre art of building steel rockets en plein air by fabricating and integrating new tank domes and steel rings and then shipping the curious contraption to its nearby launch site in a matter of weeks from start to finish.
Although it’s difficult to determine the chronology of every single part of the mysterious new tank, it’s fairly safe to say that work on its structure began less than a week before SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted a surprise update, indicating on December 27th that he was in Boca Chica, Texas working all night on “Starship tank dome production”.
In simple terms, the business half of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship upper stage and Super Heavy boosters are comprised of three main parts, shared by almost all launch vehicles. Both are rocket stages that must be as light as physically possible while supporting thousands of tons worth of supercool liquid oxygen and methane propellant. The majority of a simple rocket is ultimately a duo of cylindrical tanks capped by tank domes – also known as bulkheads. The bottom bulkhead of boosters and upper stages also serves as a mounting point for an engine section, where the vehicle’s rocket engines are attached to the rocket body in order to transfer their thrust throughout the rest of the structure.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Starship tank domes have turned out to be “the most difficult part of [the rocket’s] primary structure” to manufacture, thus explaining why he was apparently assisting the Boca Chica team all night on December 27th.
Starship Mk1 exploded on November 20th, 2019 during a nonflammable propellant loading test, a failure that unofficial videos have compellingly linked to the weld joint connecting the rocket’s upper tank dome to its cylindrical tank. That section of the rocket began leaking cryogenic propellant moments before the entire upper dome tore off the rest of the vehicle and launched hundreds of feet into the air.
All hail Baby Tank
In an apparent response to the unsatisfactory results of Starship Mk1’s manufacturing methods, SpaceX has rapidly initiated an already-planned upgrade of its Starship facilities and manufacturing methods in South Texas, taking delivery of a wealth of new tools over the last several weeks. Most recently, SpaceX’s latest step towards demonstrating that it has substantially improved manufacturing quality arrived in the form of a single propellant tank – the same diameter as Starship Mk1 but much shorter than any possible flight hardware.
Quickly nicknamed Bopper (short for Baby Starhopper) by locals and close followers, the miniature Starship test article came together at a truly spectacular pace. Comprised of two single-weld steel rings and two brand new tank domes, it appears that all four of the components were nothing more than parts and steel stock less than three weeks ago. The first sign of activity came around December 19th, when technicians began placing pressed steel sections onto a bulkhead (dome) assembly jig – used to precisely hold the pieces in the right shape and place as they are welded together.
Incredibly, aside from taking less than three weeks to go from miscellaneous parts to an assembled Starship tank delivered to the test site, SpaceX technicians appeared to finish stacking and welding its two halves (each a ring and a dome) perhaps a handful of hours before it was lifted onto a transporter and driven to the launch pad.
Even for SpaceX, moving a prototype from factory to test site hours after its primary structure was welded together represents an almost unfathomably fast pace of work – truly unfathomable in traditional aerospace. Whether or not such a pace of work is smart, sustainable, or worth it remains to be seen, but SpaceX is nevertheless on track to pressure test its new mini Starship tank as early as this morning, potentially resulting in another spectacular overpressure event (i.e. explosion).
If the tank survives up to or beyond the pressures SpaceX has designed it to, it’s safe to say that the next full-scale Starship prototype could come together far sooner than almost anyone might have expected.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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.
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 said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
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.
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.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
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.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
