News
SpaceX rolls naked Starship prototype to test site
SpaceX has rolled a strange, naked Starship prototype from its Starbase, Texas factory to a nearby test site.
Beginning with its cone-tipped nose section, SpaceX started stacking Starship S26 in October 2022. By early January 2023, the prototype had been stacked to its full 50-meter (~165 ft) height and welded together. After about six more weeks of outfitting, Ship 26 left Starbase’s High Bay assembly facility and was transported to one of two stands formerly used for suborbital Starship test flights.
SpaceX lifted Ship 26 onto Suborbital Pad A on the morning of February 12th. Just a few hundred feet to the left, Starship prototype S25 watched from Suborbital Pad B while waiting for the start of its Raptor engine test campaign. Ship 26 is four months younger than Ship 25 and rolled out without Raptors installed, as it still needs to pass several simpler tests. That’s far from the only difference between the Starships.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Starbullet
Aside from a range of smaller design changes, Ship 26 has three main differences relative to most prior Starships. First, it has zero heat shield tiles. Since the 2020-2021 period of suborbital Starship flight testing, all finished ships (S20, S21, S22, S24, S25) have been fitted with ~10,000 black, ceramic heat shield tiles. Eventually, those tiles will (theoretically) protect Starships from the intense heat created by reentering Earth’s atmosphere at orbital velocity.
Ship 26 also has no flaps. Since SpaceX first fully assembled a Starship in October 2020, every ship the company has completed (SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, SN15, SN16, S20, S21, S22, S24, S25) has had four large flaps and form-fitting ‘aerocovers’ installed. Starships need flaps to steer and orient themselves during orbital reentries. They also need flaps to control themselves during exotic landing maneuvers, which require ships to free-fall belly-down (like a human skydiver) and aggressively flip into a vertical orientation for propulsive landings.
Finally, and most confusingly, Ship 26 has no payload bay of any kind. The end result is a smooth, featureless Starship that looks like a steel bullet, can’t return to Earth, and can’t deploy satellites. Combined, the fact it exists at all almost seems like an elaborate, multi-month mistake. But SpaceX clearly intended to build Ship 26 and is now preparing to qualify it for flight.
Depot, Moon lander, or something else?
In simpler terms, Ship 26 is an intentionally expendable Starship with no way to launch satellites. That raises the obvious question: why does it exist? There are a few obvious possibilities. SpaceX is developing at least four types of Starships. The Crew and Tanker Ships will have heat shields and flaps. The Starship Moon lander will have no flaps or heat shield and will be painted white and insulated. A Depot Ship with stretched tanks will stay in orbit permanently and store propellant for in-space refilling.
Based on low-resolution renders, the bullet-like Depot Ship is the most reminiscent of Ship 26. However, there’s no evidence that Ship 26 has “exterior optical properties [optimized] for long duration [propellant storage].” The prototype also lacks any of the hardware likely needed for docking or propellant transfer and has propellant tanks that are the same size as past ships. To survive in orbit for days or weeks, it would need some kind of power source – typically solar arrays – that isn’t present. And even if an expendable Starship like S26 can already achieve SpaceX’s reported target of 250 tons (~550,000 lb) to low Earth orbit, 250 tons is only a fifth of a full propellant load.
Ship 26 could also be used for miscellaneous systems testing or a longevity demonstration in orbit. However, it’s unclear why SpaceX couldn’t simply do that with Ship 24 and Ship 25. Both have had their payload bays permanently sealed, meaning that they are only useful as test articles. The same is true for a tank-to-tank propellant transfer test SpaceX received a NASA contract to conduct in 2020. During that test, Starship will transfer “10 metric tons” of cryogenic liquid oxygen (LOx) between its main LOx tank and a smaller header LOx tank used to store landing propellant. But all Starships built to date have header tanks and could be used for the same test.
Ship 26 could exist primarily to demonstrate that a Starship with no flaps or heat shield tiles is aerodynamically stable during launch. However, expending an entire Starship for what amounts to wind tunnel testing would be extravagant.
Preparing for flight
Regardless, Ship 26 is clearly destined for more than the scrapyard. The bullet-like prototype was installed on Suborbital Pad A, which SpaceX has modified for cryogenic proofing and structural testing. While coordinating with Ship 25, which needs to conduct static fire tests, Ship 26 will be pressurized and loaded with liquid nitrogen, liquid oxygen, or both to safely simulate the thermal and mechanical loads it will experience when filled with propellant. The stand is fitted with hydraulic rams that can simultaneously simulate the thrust of six Raptor engines (1380 tons / 3M lbf).
If it passes those tests, SpaceX will presumably return Ship 26 to the Starbase factory for Raptor installation. Strangely, the smooth Starship isn’t alone. It appears that Ship 27 will be more or less identical, with no heat shield or flaps. However, there’s evidence that Ship 27 will have the first working payload bay on a Starship and could be used to deploy full-size Starlink V2 satellites in addition to any other testing SpaceX wants to use it for.
The most exotic (and unlikeliest) explanation for Ship 26 and Ship 27 is that the pair is meant to support SpaceX’s first Starship docking and propellant transfer test. In October 2022, a NASA official indicated that SpaceX’s second Starship test flight would be a “Starship-to-Starship propellant transfer.”
For now, SpaceX’s priority is preparing Ship 24 and Super Heavy Booster 7 for Starship’s first orbital launch attempt, followed by preparing Ship 25 and Booster 9 for the second orbital test flight. Until then, Ship 26 and Ship 27 will likely remain a bit of a mystery.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
News
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s unsupervised robotaxi fleet quietly grew sevenfold in three weeks just before Cybercab Day arrives.
Tesla’s unsupervised Robotaxi fleet has grown far faster than the public numbers suggested, and the timing lines up with the company’s biggest autonomy showcase yet. According to data compiled by the crowdsourced Robotaxi Tracker, Tesla now has nearly 200 vehicles operating without a safety monitor across Austin, Dallas and Houston, yielding a roughly 7X increase in about three weeks.
The jump lands four days before this week’s Tesla Cybercab launch event in Austin, where the company plans to show off its purpose-built, two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in a live commercial setting for the first time. Stick with us on X and Facebook for live reporting from the event.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Tesla has spent the past year scaling Robotaxi in small, deliberate steps, first widening geofences, then extending operating hours, then quietly growing fleet size, usually with little advance notice. Ashok Elluswamy told investors on the Q2 earnings call that the program had logged more than 380,000 unsupervised miles with zero notable incidents, a safety record the company has leaned on to justify moving slowly. Critics have used the flip side of that caution, a fleet that appeared stuck around two dozen vehicles for months, as evidence that Tesla’s driverless ambitions were outrunning its actual deployment.
A fleet quietly scaling to nearly 200 vehicles right before Cybercab Day undercuts that argument without Tesla having to say anything about it directly. It also sets up the event to do double duty. Rather than simply introducing new hardware, Tesla can point to an operating base of unsupervised Model Ys already running at meaningful scale, then argue the Cybercab, which uses the same underlying Full Self-Driving stack according to earlier coverage of the fleet’s software upgrades, is a natural next steps. Tesla has separately been registering the two-seat Cybercabs with Texas regulators this week, with the count climbing from seven to 45 in a matter of days.
The two ramps, one in software-driven Model Y deployment and one in physical Cybercab registrations, are happening in parallel rather than in sequence. That suggests Tesla wants Thursday’s event to land as proof that the robotaxi business is already running at scale, not just a reveal of a new vehicle shape. Whether the unsupervised numbers hold up once Cybercabs start mixing into the same fleet is the detail worth watching once the event wraps.
Tesla is lowering the monthly price of its Cybertruck Windshield Protection Plan from $35 to $25. The new rate will apply to the first payment on or after October 1, 2026. Tesla has told subscribers that all other benefits stay the same.
The plan covers unlimited repairs for chips and minor cracks on the front windshield. It also includes one full replacement every 12 months at no extra charge. Additional replacements in the same year carry a $100 deductible. Service is performed with Tesla glass and camera calibration, which matters because Autopilot and Full Self-Driving rely on those lenses behind the windshield.
Looks like Tesla is decreasing the Cybertruck windshield protection plan price from $35 to $25
Awesome https://t.co/MRlTU1XTbf pic.twitter.com/PWkMZt1H7G
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 28, 2026
There is no long-term contract. Coverage applies only to the front glass and does not include collision, vandalism, or weather damage.
The Cybertruck’s large, complex windshield has been more expensive to replace than glass on Tesla’s cars, which is why the pickup started at a higher subscription price. The $10 monthly cut reduces the annual cost from $420 to $300. Tesla has not publicly explained the change. The timing coincides with a year of claims data after the plan was extended to the Cybertruck.
Tesla sells several related protection products as monthly subscriptions through the Tesla app. The Windshield Protection Plan is also offered on other models. Model 3 and Model Y currently cost $16 a month. Those passenger-car rates are unchanged in the latest Cybertruck notice.
The Wheel and Tire Protection Plan covers road-hazard damage such as potholes, nails, and debris. Repairs are unlimited. Each wheel or tire replacement appointment has a $25 deductible. Pricing varies by model and whether the vehicle is a Performance version. Tesla is raising some of those rates on the same October 1 date.
Reported examples include Model 3 Performance moving from $16 to $24 and Model Y Performance from $20 to $24. Cybertruck wheel-and-tire coverage has been listed at $20 a month for the standard configuration.
A separate Luxe Package bundles four years of windshield coverage, wheel-and-tire coverage, and recommended maintenance on certain new Model S, Model X, and Cyberbeast orders, although the Model S and X are now defunct.
Tesla also offers an Extended Service Agreement after the basic vehicle warranty ends. That product covers many Tesla-manufactured parts rather than glass or tires. Together, the plans give owners a menu of targeted, cancel-anytime coverage instead of relying only on auto insurance.
SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
