News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship prototype gets frosty during first successful ‘cryoproof’
For the first time, SpaceX has put the first orbital-class Starship – a prototype known as Ship 20 (S20) – through a routine cryogenic proof test, filling the rocket with several hundred tons of liquid nitrogen to simulate its explosive propellant.
While it’s impossible to jump to conclusions before members of the public can return to the pad to take photos or CEO Elon Musk takes to Twitter to discuss the results, Ship 20’s first ‘cryoproof’ appears to have been largely successful [Edit: Musk has confirmed that the test went well]. Relative to the almost three-dozen cryoproofs SpaceX has completed with more than a dozen other Starship, booster, and test tank prototypes over the last two years, though, Ship 20’s first major test still has some oddities.
Historically, every cryoproof of a full Starship prototype has been visually unique and virtually impossible to predict. Without any direct insight from SpaceX or Elon on the objectives, plan, or timeline of tests, the process of watching tests (via unofficial webcams, of course) and attempting to interpret why certain things look the way they do or what’s going on at any given moment is a bit trying to interpret eroded hieroglyphics.
At the most basic level, cryogenic tanking tests – whether with Starship, Super Heavy, or test tanks and liquid oxygen (LOx)/methane (LCH4) propellant or neutral liquid nitrogen (LN2) – are fairly simple. The vehicle is attached to pad systems, powered on, and partially or fully loaded with cryogenic fluids. Once the desired test objectives are achieved or attempted, the vehicle is then detanked (drained of propellant or LN2).
Thanks to the fact that they’re incredibly cold (-160 to -200C; -260 to -330F), the LOx/LCH4 or LN2 Starships are filled with quickly chill the thin steel tanks containing them. With no insulation to speak of, that supercooled steel then freezes water vapor out of the humid South Texas air, creating a layer of frost/ice that generally follows the level of the cryogenic liquids in Starship’s tanks. Throughout that process, those cryogenic liquids inevitably come into contact with ambient-temperature Starship tanks and plumbing (white-hot in comparison) and warm up, boiling off into gas as a result.
A gaseous chemical is far less dense than its liquid form, meaning that the pressure inside Starship’s fixed tanks can rapidly become unmanageable after even a small amount of boiloff. To maintain the correct tank pressures, Starship – like all other rockets – occasionally vents off the gas that forms. And thus, the two main methods of interpreting the hieroglyphics that are cryoproof tests: frost levels and venting.
Compared to earlier prototypes, Starship S20’s first cryoproof has been… unusual. Most notably, SpaceX began loading the rocket with liquid nitrogen around 8pm CDT. Its LOx (bottom) and CH4 (top) tanks were then slowly filled to around 30-50% of their full volume over the next hour. However, rather than detanking, SpaceX then partially drained the methane tank but filled the LOx tank further before leaving the LOx tank more or less fully filled for more than two hours, occasionally topping it off with fresh liquid nitrogen.
Then, almost four hours after LN2 loading began, Starship performed several massive vents. Ordinarily, given the hours of testing prior, those vents would have assuredly been detank vents – effectively depressurizing Starship’s tanks as they’re drained of fluid. However, those vents instead coincided with the rapid loading of one or several hundred more tons of LN2, seemingly topping off Starship S20 in the process. Around that point, it’s possible that SpaceX began the pressure testing portion of Ship 20’s cryoproof, (mostly) closing the rocket’s vents and allowing the pressure to gradually increase to flight levels (and maybe even higher).
Many, many months ago, when SpaceX was deep into cryoproofing the first full-size Starship prototypes, Musk revealed an operating pressure goal of 6 bar (~90 psi). Ships were eventually successfully tested above 8 bar (~115 psi), giving Starship a healthy ~30% safety margin. As the first orbital-class Starship prototype, Ship 20 likely needs to hit those tank pressures more so than any ship before it to have a shot at surviving its orbital launch debut and orbital-velocity reentry attempt.
Beyond the basics of cryoproofing, Starship S20 also marked a crucial step forward on September 29th/30th, becoming the first ship to complete a cryoproof test with a full heat shield installed. While it’s impossible to judge exactly how well S20’s ~15,000-tile heat shield performed, views from public webcams showed no obvious signs of tiles shattering and falling off as Starship repeatedly cooled and warmed – contracting and expanding as a result. Additionally, still in contact with the air, the steel tank skin under a majority of Ship 20’s tiles would have likely covered itself in a layer of frost and ice, but the heat shield appeared to handle that invisible change without issue.
It’s possible that dozens or hundreds of tiles bumped together and chipped or cracked in a manner too subtle to be visible on LabPadre or NASASpaceflight webcasts, but that can only be confirmed or denied when the road reopens and local photographers can capture higher-resolution views of Starship. For now, it appears that Ship 20’s first cryoproof was highly successful, hopefully opening the door for Raptor installation and static fire testing in the near future. Stay tuned for more!
Update: As is almost tradition by now, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk didn’t take long to tweet about the results of Starship S20’s first cryoproof, confirming that the “proof was good!”
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
