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!”
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
