News
SpaceX is ready to build the first Starship destined for space after latest tests
After a busy several days of rocket hardware testing, Elon Musk says that SpaceX may be ready to build the first Starship prototype destined for space.
According to Musk, one test in particular – performed in South Texas just yesterday – is an encouraging sign that SpaceX’s Starship team is becoming increasingly competent at building the massive steel parts that will ultimately make up the generation launch vehicle. For SpaceX, the particular skills and expertise needed to precisely and consistently build a launch vehicle – let alone a rocket as large and complex as Starship – are quite a bit different from those it has mastered with Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon.
A lot of the expertise – particularly engineering talent, countless lessons-learned, and insight into reusability – is directly transferable from Falcon rockets to SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy program. Where it really isn’t transferable, however, is in the methods required to actually build the steel subcomponents that must ultimately be assembled together to form the rocket’s upper stage and booster. As a result, SpaceX has spent more than a year focused on building, testing, scrapping, improving, and re-testing any number of critical Starship components. Over the last four weeks (and last few days in particular), that testing has come to a head and Elon Musk believes the results have opened the door for SpaceX to begin building its first space-bound Starship prototypes.
SpaceX’s latest round of full-scale Starship hardware tests began just 10-20 days ago, depending on how one counts. Back around the start of the new calendar year, SpaceX began rapidly integrating two new Starship bulkheads and two cylindrical steel rings (barrel sections), ultimately delivering a finished ‘test tank’ after just 20 days of work. On January 10th, scarcely 24 hours after the two halves of the test tank were welded together, SpaceX sent the Starship test tank to its nearby launch pad and pressurized it with water until it quite literally burst.
Musk tweeted the results of that intentional test-to-destruction just a few hours after it was completed, revealing that SpaceX’s upgraded production and integration techniques enabled the tank to survive pressures almost 20% greater than the minimum Starships will need to perform orbital launches.
“Critically, the tank reached a maximum sustained pressure of 7.1 bar (103 psi), 18% more than the operating pressure (6 bar/87 psi) Musk says Starship prototypes will need to begin orbital test flights. At 7.1 bar, the test tank would have been experiencing an incredible ~20,000 metric tons (45 million lbf) of force spread out over its interior surfaces — equivalent to ~20% of the weight of an entire US Navy aircraft carrier. Perhaps even more impressive, that same Starship test tank was built from almost nothing extremely quickly, going from first weld to said pressurization test in just three weeks (20 days).
With relatively minor improvements to welding conditions and the manufacturing precision of Starship rings and domes, Musk believes that SpaceX can reliably build Starships and Super Heavy boosters to survive pressures greater than 8.5 bar (125 psi), guaranteeing a safety margin of at least 40%. Even a minor improvement of ~6% would give Starship a safety margin of 125%, enough – in the eyes of most engineering standards committees – to reasonably certify Starships for orbital test flights.”
Teslarati.com — January 12th, 2020
Test Tank 2: The Tankening
This brings us to January 27th, a little over two weeks after SpaceX completed and burst the first standalone Starship test tank. Over the last week, SpaceX has quickly assembled a second Starship test tank, using a few clearly new methods and parts, as well as a brand-new tent built by the same company that Tesla used for Fremont’s fourth General Assembly line.
In the last few days, two new bulkheads and steel rings came together to form Starship test tank #2, which was subsequently prepped for transport and moved about a mile down the road to SpaceX’s launch facilities on the morning of January 27th. Scarcely a few hours later, well before anyone was paying close attention for test activities, Elon Musk took to Twitter to reveal that the second tank had already been subjected to a pressure test with water. That second tank reportedly survived up to 7.5 bar, an improvement of about 6% compared to the first tank.
This time, however, the tank wasn’t actually catastrophically destroyed by the pressure test, instead developing a leak around the weld connecting the two halves that lead SpaceX to back off. Musk says that that presumably small leak will now be repaired, after which the same tank will be tested again but with one significant difference. Musk says that Test Tank #2’s second pressure test will be performed with a cryogenic liquid — most likely liquid nitrogen (LN2).
In replies after his reveal, Musk noted that he believed the second test tank could perform significantly better if pressurized with a cryogenic liquid. That’s because certain types of steel – particularly those SpaceX has chosen for Starship – exhibit something known as cryogenic hardening when exposed to extremely cold temperatures, producing steel that can be dramatically stronger by some measures.
Ultimately, as mentioned above, a tank pressure safety margin of 125% is the minimum most engineering standards provide for any given orbital-class launch vehicle. At 7.5 bar, even under the very unlikely assumption that Starship tanks will not see even a marginal strength increase at cryogenic temperatures, SpaceX’s second Starship test tank has officially hit that 125% safety margin. As Musk himself noted on Monday, he is now confident that SpaceX can immediately start building the first Starship destined for spaceflight and further revealed that two of that particular Starship’s three tank domes are already nearing completion.
Known as Starship SN01 (serial number 01), there’s a strong possibility that the massive spacecraft will never reach higher than a 20 km (12.5 mi) flight test SpaceX intends to perform. The company’s rapidly changing strategy may very well mean that SN01 – now ‘go’ for production – could also support suborbital spaceflight testing and maybe even the first orbital Starship launch, although orbital launches will require a Super Heavy booster. Elon Musk, for one, has already christened Starship SN01 an “orbital vehicle”.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
