News
SpaceX sets stage for Starship booster’s first 33-engine static fire
SpaceX has set the stage for a record-breaking Starship booster static fire after the rocket completed a complex fueling test and launch rehearsal earlier this week.
On January 25th, a tower the size of a skyscraper activated a pair of giant mechanical arms to disassemble the largest rocket ever built. The arms carefully grabbed Starship using hard points under its flaps and lifted the 50-meter-tall second stage and spacecraft off of Super Heavy Booster 7. Nicknamed Mechazilla, the robot lowered the hundred-ton (~220,000+ lbs) vehicle hundreds of feet onto a waiting stand and eventually let go. On January 26th, SpaceX transported Ship 24 back to its Starbase, Texas factory for finishing touches.
Booster 7 remained installed on Starbase’s donut-shaped orbital launch mount, which uses clamps and umbilicals to hold Starship in place and power, fuel, and pressurize Super Heavy. In theory, the next time Booster 7 leaves that launch mount, it will do so under its own power. But first, SpaceX must ensure that that unprecedented power can be controlled (and survived).
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
This, unfortunately, is far from the first iteration of this story. SpaceX has been seemingly close to the milestone at many points over the last year and a half. In September 2021, for example, CEO Elon Musk reported that Super Heavy Booster 4 would attempt the first static fire on Starbase’s orbital launch mount later that month. Eleven months later, Super Heavy Booster 7 gave the OLM its inaugural static fire test – albeit with just one of its 33 engines.
In the months following that static fire, Booster 7 completed another single-engine test, a two-engine test, a seven-engine test, a fourteen-engine test, and a long-duration eleven-engine test. All of that slow and steady testing has been fairly successful and caused no major damage to the rocket or pad. But five months after it began, SpaceX has never ignited more than 14 – 42% – of Super Heavy’s 33 Raptor engines at once. That must change before SpaceX can gain enough confidence in Starship for (and convince the FAA to license) an orbital launch attempt.
During Super Heavy B7’s 14-engine static fire, the booster could have produced up to 3220 tons (7.1 million pounds) of thrust. When it ignites all 33 available engines for the first time, its maximum thrust could leap to 7590 tons (16.7 million pounds), beating the next most powerful rocket in history – the Soviet N1 – by nearly 60%. In other words, SpaceX will be attempting something unprecedented in rocketry. Success is far from guaranteed and the worst possible failure mode could almost entirely destroy Starship’s only finished orbital launch site, explaining SpaceX’s unusual caution.
On January 23rd, Ship 24 and Booster 7 completed Starship’s first full wet dress rehearsal (a fueling and launch rehearsal test) on the first try – an extremely impressive achievement for any rocket, let alone the largest in history. With that combined test out of the way, the only unprecedented test standing between Starship and its first orbital launch attempt is a 33-engine Super Heavy static fire.
To reduce risk, Ship 24 was removed from Booster 7. Back at the factory, SpaceX needs to close a few gaps left in its heat shield, and will likely also conduct careful inspections to ensure that the Starship is ready for flight. Unburdened of Ship 24, Booster 7 may finally be on the cusp of the most challenging ground test in Starship and SpaceX history. SpaceX has scheduled 12-hour road closures that could be used for that purpose as early as January 30th, 31st, and February 1st.
Those road closures could be used for Ship 25 static fire testing instead of or in addition to Booster 7. The Super Heavy is also missing an important hydraulic power unit (HPU) that was removed before the wet dress rehearsal. It’s unclear if static fire testing can be conducted without that HPU (one of two), why it was removed, or how long replacing it will take, adding more uncertainty. Nonetheless, it still appears that SpaceX is no more than a few weeks away from Starship’s first 33-engine static fire attempt.
A California radiologist who drove his Tesla Model Y off a 250-foot cliff in an attempt to kill his family has had his charges dismissed after doctors say he is “doing well” in a mental health program.
Dharmesh Patel was charged with three counts of attempted murder in connection with a January 2023 crash where he drove his Tesla off a cliff, injuring his wife and two children, aged 7 and 4 at the time.
Patel drove the Tesla off Devil’s Slide in California, an area that is extremely rough to the point that investigators and rescuers expected the worst when arriving at the scene for the first time. Patel supposedly had schizoaffective disorder, according to Deputy District Attorney Dominique Davis.
Shockingly, Patel’s wife, who was in the vehicle, testified that she did not want her husband to be prosecuted, noting that their children missed their father and they wanted him to come back home. Patel’s attorney argued, “not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal.”
Doctor who took Tesla off cliff gets support from unlikely person
A three-day trial in Mental Health Diversion Court ruled in Patel’s favor, which kept him out of jail and instead on house arrest. He was admitted to a Mental Health Diversion Program, which he successfully completed, the Associated Press reported. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the judge was “required by law” to dismiss the charges:
“If the person who’s given mental health diversion follows the treatment plan, there’s nothing that can be done, and at the end of the two years he gets it wiped out of his record.”
Wagstaffe said he has argued, along with other DAs in California, to have attempted murder removed from the list of charges eligible to be dismissed due to mental health diversion programs.
Patel had the charges officially dismissed on Monday; his wife waited for him as he left court and they departed the building together, according to Mercury News. Patel surrendered his California medical license in December.
The crash has been one of the best examples of Tesla’s incredible engineering, which has saved four lives in this particular instance. The car was totalled but kept the four human beings alive and safe, which is something that many referred to as “an absolute miracle.”
A common misconception of anti-EV proponents is that the batteries used in the vehicles are detrimental to the environment and that they cause more waste than they are worth. But a look at Tesla’s battery recycling efforts last year shows the company is doing more than ever to recover materials and give portions of the cells a second life.
Tesla reported a significant milestone in its sustainability efforts last year, with battery recycling volumes rising 20% compared to 2024. According to the company’s 2025 Impact Report, Tesla recycled over 14,000 metric tons of battery material through a combination of in-house processing at its Gigafactories and collaborations with third-party recycling partners.
Tesla: “In 2025, we recycled over 14,000 metric tons of battery material through a combination of in-house processing and through our network of recycling partners.”
That’s equivalent to 46,000 long-range battery packs, a +20% increase from 2024. pic.twitter.com/TC3Nz7Kaqf
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) July 7, 2026
This amount of recovered material is equivalent to the resources needed to produce approximately 46,000 long-range battery packs. The increase reflects growing operational scale as Tesla’s global vehicle fleet expands and more batteries reach end-of-life or manufacturing scrap becomes available for processing.
Tesla and Battery Recycling
Battery recycling forms a core part of Tesla’s circular economy strategy. The company designs its batteries for longevity, often exceeding 200,000 miles of driving, and prioritizes repairs, remanufacturing, and second-life applications before full recycling.
Once packs are decommissioned, Tesla ensures 100% are recycled with no materials sent to landfills. This approach recovers critical metals including lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper, which can be refined and reused in new battery production.
Tesla has advanced hydrometallurgical recycling processes capable of achieving recovery rates up to 98% for key battery metals. These methods are more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional pyrometallurgical techniques, reducing energy use and enabling higher-purity materials suitable for direct reintegration into battery manufacturing.
Tesla co-founder JB Straubel confirms Redwood’s battery recycling operations are already profitable
In-house capabilities are supplemented by a network of specialized partners, creating a robust system that handles both production scrap and end-of-life packs.
The environmental and economic benefits are substantial. Recycling reduces reliance on virgin mining, lowers the carbon footprint associated with raw material extraction and processing, and helps stabilize supply chains for critical minerals amid rising global EV demand. As millions of Tesla vehicles age, the volume of recyclable material is expected to grow significantly in the coming years.
This 20% year-over-year growth demonstrates the effectiveness of Tesla’s investments in recycling infrastructure and technology. It positions the company as a leader in addressing one of the automotive industry’s major sustainability challenges. Continued innovation in battery design for easier disassembly and higher recyclability will further enhance these efforts.
Overall, Tesla’s progress in 2025 highlights how scaling recycling operations supports both environmental goals and long-term business resilience in the transition to electric mobility. As the EV market matures, such closed-loop systems will become increasingly vital for sustainable growth.
Tesla has spent years trying to engineer its way out of the automotive paint shop, one of the most expensive, space-consuming, and environmentally costly steps in vehicle manufacturing. With the Cybercab, Tesla confirmed on X this week that a new reaction injection molding process will embed color directly into the panel itself during production.
“Our new reaction injection molding (RIM) process shrinks Cybercab paint cycles from hours to minutes. This cuts those parts’ manufacturing and supply chain emissions by 35% and eliminating 100% of paint volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in traditional paint methods.” noted Tesla.
While the RIM process isn’t necessarily new and has existed since the 1960s, what makes Tesla’s application notable is how it is being used specifically for exterior body panels that traditionally required a separate paint process after forming.
Tesla’s RIM approach integrates the color directly into the panel material during the molding process itself. The pigment is part of the polymer mix injected into the mold, meaning the panel comes out of the mold already colored, with no separate paint application required. The clear coat or protective layer can be applied at the mold stage or through a much faster post-process than traditional multi-stage painting. Tesla claims this compresses what was a multi-hour paint cycle into minutes per panel.
Tesla’s obsession with killing the paint shop is one of the most consistent threads running through the company’s manufacturing philosophy going back years. As far back as 2018, Musk was trimming paint color options to simplify production, tweeting at the time: “Moving 2 of 7 Tesla colors off menu on Wednesday to simplify manufacturing.” Two years later, in a 2020 Automotive News interview, Musk laid out his broader vision, saying he believed Tesla factories could one day be 1,000 times more efficient than conventional plants, and pointing to the paint shop as one of the biggest sources of waste, cost, and complexity. The Cybertruck was the most extreme expression of that thinking. Tesla chose an unpainted stainless steel exterior partly because it would eliminate the need for a $200 million paint facility at Gigafactory Texas. The stainless approach proved harder and more expensive than anticipated, but the underlying ambition never changed. The Cybercab is what happens when that same ambition meets a manufacturing process that delivers on it.
Radiologist who drove Tesla off cliff has attempted murder charges dismissed
Tesla battery recycling efforts increased 20 percent last year
