News
SpaceX scraps first Starship prototype to make way for new and improved rockets
A bit less than a month after SpaceX’s first full-scale Starship prototype was partially destroyed during testing, the damaged rocket has been almost completely scrapped to make way for new and improved Starships.
On November 20th, SpaceX effectively tested the Starship Mk1 – the first full-scale prototype – to destruction, pressurizing the rocket’s tank section (lower half) until it quite literally popped its top. The pressure wave that failure created damaged almost every internal component of the massive vehicle, all but guaranteeing that SpaceX would have to scrap the vehicle and move on to new prototypes.
Those future prototypes will take advantage of the many, many lessons learned from Starhopper’s two test flights and several additional grounded tests, as well as the many learning experiences presented through Starship Mk1’s pathfinder manufacturing, assembly, and test campaign. As is SpaceX’s signature, the company is choosing to learn by building actual hardware and making the inevitable mistakes that come hand in hand with such an eccentric and ambitious program.
Above all else, SpaceX is trying to redefine the minimum infrastructure needed to build high-performance launch vehicles at a scale comparable to or even larger than NASA’s Saturn V, the largest rocket ever successfully launched. Modern rockets like Falcon 9 and Atlas V are built in relatively clean and environmentally-controlled environments and Saturn I and V – while quite a bit less sterile – were at least built inside large hangar-like facilities.
With Starship, SpaceX instead wants to build rockets even larger than Saturn V out in the elements and with a far more common (and thus affordable) workforce, (theoretically) made possible in large part thanks to its extensive use of stainless steel. Case in point, Starhopper – a low-fidelity Starship test bed – was quite literally welded together on the South Texas coast by welders far more familiar with building water towers. While not without its teething pains, Starhopper proved to be incredibly sturdy and resistant to anomalous behavior and successfully performed two separate flight tests in July and August 2019.
Three months after Starhopper’s second and final hop test, SpaceX’s Starship Mk1 tank section – the lower half of the rocket – was moved to the launch site and began a series of tanking tests. The first few tests were completed successfully and focused on searching for leaks with a neutral cryogenic liquid (likely liquid nitrogen). After the majority of those leaks were sealed, SpaceX moved into liquid oxygen load testing a few days later. For unconfirmed reasons, it turned out that that first liquid oxygen pressure test would also be Starship Mk1’s last.
On November 20th, SpaceX pressurized Starship Mk1 to its limits, with almost all of the visible creases and wrinkles in its steel surface visibly smoothing out as the supercool liquid oxygen caused frost to form on the exterior. Ultimately, SpaceX pushed the vehicle beyond its limits and its uppermost tank dome quite literally popped off of Starship’s tank section, whether the overpressure event was intentional or unexpected. The force of that overpressure event essentially sent a shockwave through Starship, crushing and warping its two remaining tank domes and transfer tubes like an aluminum soda can.
In simpler terms, very few parts of Starship Mk1 escaped unharmed, all but guaranteeing that it would not be worth the effort to repair it. Instead, SpaceX has almost entirely scrapped the prototype over a period of two weeks. According to an official statement released shortly after Mk1’s failure, SpaceX will attempt to recover and reuse as much of Mk1 as it can and those few salvageable parts will be added to an entirely new prototype, deemed Starship Mk3.
Although it’s disappointing that Starship Mk1 was unable to perform any kind of Raptor engine testing, let alone flight tests, it’s safe to say that the pathfinder prototype has been well worth the time and effort it took to build. Regardless of flight or engine testing, a ton of Mk1’s value lies in its utility as a hands-on, physical testbed for SpaceX employees to perform experiments and learn how to build steel rockets – and build them outside in less than friendly weather conditions.
SpaceX is in the midst of rapidly expanding its presence in Boca Chica, Texas, including a new launch control center, an expanded landing and launch pad, new production facilities, and more. The company has also just begun churning out numerous monolithic (single-weld) steel rings that will likely become part of Starship Mk3 in the near future. It will likely be several months before that next-generation prototype is as close to completion as Starship Mk1 was, but it should be well worth the wait and well worth its predecessor’s sacrifice.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
Tesla puts Giga Berlin in Plaid Mode with new massive investment
The facility, Tesla’s first in Europe, opened in 2022 and has become a cornerstone for Model Y production and, increasingly, in-house battery manufacturing. Recent announcements highlight a dual focus on scaling vehicle output and advancing vertical integration through 4680 battery cells.
Tesla is pushing forward with significant upgrades at its Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide, Germany, signaling renewed confidence in its European operations despite past market challenges.
The facility, Tesla’s first in Europe, opened in 2022 and has become a cornerstone for Model Y production and, increasingly, in-house battery manufacturing. Recent announcements highlight a dual focus on scaling vehicle output and advancing vertical integration through 4680 battery cells.
In April, plant manager André Thierig announced a 20 percent increase in Model Y production starting in July, following a record Q1 output of more than 61,000 vehicles. To support the ramp-up, Tesla plans to hire approximately 1,000 new employees beginning in May and convert 500 temporary workers to permanent positions.
The move is expected to lift weekly production significantly, addressing rebounding demand in Europe after a challenging 2025.
Today, we announced a $ 250m investment for our Giga Berlin Cell factory. This will enable 18GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1500 new jobs. Good news during challenging times for the German industry. pic.twitter.com/ou4SWMfWh9
— André Thierig (@AndrThie) May 12, 2026
The expansion builds on earlier progress. In 2025, Tesla secured partial approvals to add roughly 2 million square feet of factory space, raising potential annual vehicle capacity from around 500,000 toward 800,000 units, with longer-term ambitions approaching one million vehicles per year. Logistical improvements, new infrastructure, and battery-related facilities are already underway on company-owned land.
Battery production is the latest major focus. On May 12, Thierig revealed an additional $250 million investment in the on-site cell factory. This more than doubles the planned 4680 battery cell capacity to 18 gigawatt-hours annually—up from the 8 GWh target set in December 2025—while creating over 1,500 new battery-related jobs.
Total cell investments at the site now exceed previous figures, bringing the factory closer to full vertical integration: cells, packs, and vehicles produced under one roof. Tesla describes this as unique in Europe and a step toward stronger supply chain resilience.
The plans come amid regulatory and community hurdles. Earlier expansion proposals faced protests over environmental concerns and water usage, leading to phased approvals beginning in 2024. Tesla has navigated these by emphasizing sustainable practices and economic benefits, including thousands of local jobs in Brandenburg.
With nearly 12,000 employees already on site and production steadily climbing, Gigafactory Berlin is poised for growth. The combined vehicle and battery expansions position the plant as a key hub for Tesla’s European ambitions, potentially making it one of the continent’s largest manufacturing complexes if local support continues.
As EV demand recovers, these investments underscore Tesla’s commitment to scaling efficiently in Germany while addressing regional supply chain needs.
News
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Honda has given up on a previous plan to completely changeover to EVs by 2040, a new report states. The company’s CEO, Toshihiro Mibe, said that the idea is “not realistic.”
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Mibe said (via Motor1):
“Because of the uncertainty in the business environment and also the customer demand, is changing beyond our expectation and, therefore, we have judged that it’ll be difficult to achieve. That ratio [100-percent electric in 2040] is not realistic as of now. We have withdrawn this target.”
Instead of going all-electric, Honda still wants to oblige by its hopes to be net carbon neutral by 2050. It will do this by focusing on those popular hybrid powertrains, planning to launch 15 of them by March 2030.
Honda will invest 4.4 trillion yen, or almost $28 billion, to build hybrid powertrains built around four and six-cylinder gas engines.
There are so many companies abandoning their all-electric ambitions or even slowing their roll on building them so quickly. Ford, General Motors, Mercedes, and Nissan have all retreated from aggressive EV targets by either cancelling, delaying, or pausing the development of electric models.
Hyundai’s 2030 targets rely on mixed offerings of electric, hybrid & hydrogen vehicles
Early-decade pledges from multiple brands proved overly ambitious as infrastructure lags, battery costs remain high in some markets, and many buyers prefer hybrids for their convenience and range. Toyota has long championed hybrids, while others have quietly extended internal-combustion timelines.
For Honda—historically known for reliable gasoline engines—this shift leverages its core strengths while buying time to refine electric technology. Whether the hybrid-heavy strategy will protect market share in an increasingly competitive landscape remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the gas engine is far from dead at Honda, unfortunately.
Elon Musk
Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
SpaceX frontman Elon Musk explained on Wednesday why commercial airline Delta got cold feet over offering Starlink for stable internet on its flights — and the reason will probably shock you.
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
Delta rejected Starlink because it insisted on routing all connectivity through its branded “Delta Sync” portal rather than allowing a simple Starlink experience.
Instead, the airline partnered with Amazon’s Project Kuiper—rebranded as Amazon Leo—for high-speed Wi-Fi on up to 500 aircraft, with rollout targeted for 2028. At the time of the announcement, Kuiper had roughly 300 satellites in orbit, while Starlink operated more than 10,400.
The use of the “Delta Sync” portal would not work for SpaceX, as Musk went on to say that:
“SpaceX requires that there be no annoying ‘portal’ to use Starlink. Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home. Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning strategy.”
Musk doubled down in a follow-up post:
“Yes, SpaceX deliberately accepted lower revenue deals with airlines in exchange for making Starlink super easy to use and available to all passengers.”
Not exactly. SpaceX requires that there be no annoying “portal” to use Starlink.
Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home.
Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
SpaceX has structured its airline agreements to prioritize zero-friction access—no captive portals, no SkyMiles logins, no paywalls or ads blocking basic connectivity.
While this means forgoing higher-margin deals that would let carriers monetize the service more aggressively, it ensures Starlink feels like home broadband at 35,000 feet. Passengers on partner airlines such as United, Qatar Airways, and Air France have already praised the service for enabling seamless video calls, streaming, and work mid-flight without interruptions.
Delta’s choice reflects a different philosophy. By keeping Wi-Fi behind its Delta Sync ecosystem, the airline aims to drive loyalty program engagement and control the digital passenger journey. Yet, critics argue this short-term control comes at the expense of immediate competitiveness.
Airlines already installing Starlink are pulling ahead in customer satisfaction surveys, while Delta passengers face years of reliance on slower, legacy systems until Leo launches.
SpaceX’s decision to trade revenue for simplicity will pay off in the longer term, as Starlink is already positioning itself as the default high-speed option for carriers that value passenger satisfaction over incremental fees.
Musk’s focus on creating not only a great service but also a reasonable user experience highlights SpaceX’s prowess with Starlink as it continues to expand across new partners and regions.
Tesla puts Giga Berlin in Plaid Mode with new massive investment
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
