News
SpaceX’s second flight-proven Starship makes way for next ‘test tank’
Four days after the rocket’s hop debut, SpaceX has safely returned its second flight-proven Starship prototype to an assembly building for refurbishment, making way for a new ‘test tank’ at the launch pad.
Known as Starship serial number six (SN6), the ~30m (~100 ft) tall prototype became the second full-scale Starship to take flight on September 3rd, following in SN5’s footsteps to reach a similar ~150m (~500 ft) apogee before gently landing. More or less identical to SN5’s own August 4th hop debut, it marked the second hop of an entirely separate Starship prototype in 30 days – a feat almost certainly unprecedented in the history of large-scale rocket development.
Significant work remains to speed up the post-hop process, which appears to currently amount to some ~48 hours of gradual, uncontrolled detanking and depressurization. Regardless, a bit least than four days after a successful launch and landing, Starship SN6 was rolled back to SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas production facilities around 9am CDT, September 7th. Just five hours after that, Starship test tank SN7.1 – the second in a planned series of two – was loaded onto the same transporter and shipped down the road to the launch pad.
Since its first hop, over the last 30 days, SpaceX has inspected and refurbished Starship SN5 to help support what CEO Elon Musk has described as “several short hops to smooth out [the] launch process.” SN6’s success (and the intact launch infrastructure it thus left behind) now means that SN5 will almost certainly be reused in the near future. It’s unclear how many hops will be needed for Starship launch operations to be optimized into a smooth process but 4+ (2 x SN5, 2 x SN6) seems to be a safe bet.
However, SN5’s second hop will have to wait. Up next on SpaceX’s South Texas manifest is the fifth in a series of intentionally destructive tank tests, used to qualify (or disqualify) new Starship designs, manufacturing techniques, and materials. Known as Starship SN7.1, this particular test tank is the second in a series of two meant to determine the capabilities of a new steel alloy.
The first tank, SN7, was (successfully) tested to destruction on June 23rd and is believed to have reached record pressures before it failed. Perhaps more importantly, an unintentional leak during one of SN7’s first pressure test attempts proved that the new 304L (-ish) steel alloy it was built out of would make certain failure modes far less catastrophic (i.e. a leak instead of a violent rupture).
SN7 was a single basic test tank: an upper dome, lower dome, and three steel rings. SN7.1 is significantly more complex, adding a skirt section with hold-down clamps at the base and replacing the aft tank dome with a thrust dome and thrust puck (Raptor engine attachment points). SN7 was simply loaded with cryogenic liquid nitrogen and pressurized. SN7.1 – thanks to the addition of a thrust puck and skirt section – will perform similar cryo pressure tests but will also be subject to the simulated thrust of three Raptor engines with a series of hydraulic rams.
As of now, SpaceX has road closures scheduled today and tomorrow (Sept 8th) from 8am to 8pm CDT – tomorrow likely being the earliest opportunity for SN7.1 testing to begin.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
