News
SpaceX shuffles Starships, gears up for more Super Heavy static fires
SpaceX is busy preparing for the orbital launch debut its next-generation Starship rocket, but the company’s South Texas rocket factory is also working around the clock to prepare several more sets of ships and boosters for the flight testing that will follow.
That was more obvious than usual on November 8th, when SpaceX made moves to prepare both of its finished Starships for new phases of testing. SpaceX kicked off the busy day by removing Starship S25 – a newer prototype that arrived at the launch site just three weeks prior – a stand dedicated to proof testing ships. Three hours later, after spending three of the last four weeks sitting on top of Super Heavy Booster 7, Starship S24 was ‘destacked’ (lifted off of B7 and lowered onto a stand on the ground) in the early afternoon.
Booster 7, Ship 24, and Ship 25 have all been busy since mid-October. SpaceX stacked Booster 7 and Ship 24 for the first time on October 11th and then attempted to test the fully-stacked rocket on October 13th. By some accounts, although almost nothing was visible to the public, the first full-stack test may have gone poorly, potentially even endangering pad technicians that approached the rocket to troubleshoot. On October 16th, SpaceX fully destacked Ship 24, and CEO Elon Musk noted that the company was “proceeding very carefully” to avoid an explosion that could set “Starship progress back by ~6 months.”
But if there was a major issue on October 13th, SpaceX didn’t show it, and Ship 24 was reinstalled atop Booster 7 on October 20th without any obvious maintenance or repairs. SpaceX then kicked off an unusual series of tests on October 24th, during which it only filled the liquid oxygen (LOx) or liquid methane (LCH4) tanks of Super Heavy B7, Ship 24, or both vehicles at once. A rare NASA briefing on October 31st later called them “single-species prop[ellant]” tests – a kind of extra-cautious testing that had never been seen before at Starbase. A few days prior, a member of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) noted that an accidental explosion that damaged Booster 7 in July had caused SpaceX to “increase [the rigor of its] systems engineering and risk management,” explaining the sudden influx of unusually conservative testing.
By the time Ship 24 was destacked from Booster 7 on November 8th, SpaceX had completed seven single-species tests, four of which involved loading LOx or LCH4 into both stages and three of which only tested Super Heavy. Booster 7 and Ship 24’s tanks were fully filled and LCH4 and LOx were never simultaneously loaded on either stage.
NASA’s October 31st briefing reported that SpaceX had plans to destack Ship 24 before conducting additional static fire testing with Booster 7. While B7 completed 1, 3, and 7-engine static fires in August and September, those tests were nowhere close to the full 33-engine static fire required to properly qualify the most powerful rocket in history. According to NASASpaceflight.com managing editor Chris Bergin, SpaceX’s next goal is to fire up approximately half of Super Heavy B7’s Raptors.
Strangely, although Ship 24 was believed to have completed all of the standalone testing needed to clear it for flight, SpaceX installed the vehicle on a stand used for Starship static fire testing on November 9th, implying that more standalone testing may be required. For now, that shouldn’t pose a problem as long as SpaceX wraps up any additional Starship testing around the same time as Booster 7’s next static fire campaign wraps up, but it could delay full-stack launch readiness if it takes any longer.
Finally, after Ship 25 was removed from SpaceX’s other Starship test stand on November 8th, it was rolled back to Starbase’s Starship factory. Ship 25 first rolled to the launch site on October 19th and has since completed four visible tests. On October 28th, Ship 25 survived a pneumatic proof test that showed that its tanks were leak-free and capable of surviving flight pressures (roughly 6-8.5 bar or 90-125 psi). Three cryogenic proof tests followed on November 1st, 2nd, and 7th. The first cryoproof was likely just that – a test that pressurized Ship 25’s tanks and filled them with cryogenic liquid nitrogen (LN2) or a combination of liquid oxygen and LN2.
The next two tests likely took advantage of the customized test stand, which has been semi-permanently outfitted with a set of hydraulic rams that allow SpaceX to simulate the thrust of six Raptor engines while Starship’s structures are chilled to cryogenic temperatures and loaded with roughly 1000 tons (~2.2M lb) of cryogenic fluids. If a Starship can survive those stresses on the ground, the assumption is that it will likely survive similar stresses in flight.
Assuming that Ship 25’s first several proof tests were successful, which they appear to have been, SpaceX returned the prototype to its Starbase factory to install six Raptor engines and a series of shields and firewalls that will protect those engines from each other. Once fully outfitted, Ship 25 will return to the launch site for static fire testing and take Ship 24’s place on Suborbital Pad B. Ship 24 took approximately two months to go from its last cryoproof to its first static fire. But its testing got off to a relatively rocky start, so Ship 25 could be ready sooner.
SpaceX could begin the next phases of Booster 7 and Ship 24 testing as early as November 10th or November 13th.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
