News
SpaceX preparing Super Heavy, Starbase for booster’s next steps
Amid a flurry of deliveries and work on several new Starship boosters, SpaceX is preparing the first truly finished Super Heavy for its next steps.
Partially completed by early September, Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) supported SpaceX’s iconic ‘full stack’ fit test back on August 6th before returning to the build site but has mostly just floated around Starbase’s launch and test facilities in the seven weeks since its second trip to the pad. On September 10th, CEO Elon Musk himself suggested that SpaceX had plans to static fire the booster as early as mid-September – more than six weeks ago. Obviously, nothing even approximating Super Heavy testing transpired. Instead, at least relative to rapid-fire Starbase operations in the two years prior, SpaceX has almost absentmindedly worked on the booster, mostly completing partially-finished wire runs that run its full 69m (~225 ft) length.
In the last few weeks, though, the type of work being done on Super Heavy B4 has changed.
On September 26th, to give the Starbase construction crew more room to install giant arms on the orbital pad’s ‘launch tower,’ SpaceX removed Super Heavy B4 from the launch mount for the second time, temporarily relocating it to an unused patch of the pad’s old landing zone. Booster 4 hasn’t been moved since. However, while probably a bit slower than SpaceX would have liked, large-scale work on the Starship launch tower was effectively completed last week with the installation of two giant rocket-catching ‘Mechazilla’ arms.
A great deal of work has also been done on Starbase’s orbital tank farm over the last two months, including the installation of the last few storage tanks, the ‘sleeving’ of those tanks, a great deal of plumbing, and the start of real propellant deliveries. Save for a few days spent testing Starship S20 in late September and mid-October, the pad construction crews that have to evacuate the pad for 6-12 hours for every test have had three full months to work without interruption. Perhaps the most optimistic explanation for the unusually long gap between Booster 4 and Ship 20 rollout and testing is that SpaceX consciously chose to put off vehicle tests to avoid disrupting orbital launch site construction and retasked nearly all Starbase workers for that construction.
Regardless, with the launch tower and orbital tank farm now more or less structurally complete and work already underway to prepare the tank farm to support its first booster tests, most of the work that may have been drawing focus and resources away from ship and booster preparations appears to be wrapping up. That may be why, for the third time, SpaceX technicians began removing a number of Raptor engines from Super Heavy B4 around the start of October.
Aside from removing around a third to half of Super Heavy’s 29 Raptors, SpaceX also began slowly but surely installing parts of a steel heatshield designed to protect those engines during ground testing, ascent, and reentry. Newer Raptors have also been trickling from Starbase’s build site to the launch pad for installation on the booster and more engines will likely be (re)installed as heatshield installation progresses.
Perhaps the most unusual part of recent Super Heavy B4 work is the apparent application of some kind of foam around several racks of pressure vessels (COPVs), hydraulic manifolds, and umbilical connections installed around the booster’s base. Those racks will eventually be enclosed inside steel ‘aerocovers’ already staged beside Super Heavy. A number of Twitter users believe that the foam being selectively applied is for acoustic deadening – meant to protect sensitive electronics, valves, and computers from the brutal environment Super Heavy itself will produce at liftoff and during ground testing.
Ultimately, with Booster 4 work ramping back up and the zenith of orbital pad construction activity now likely behind SpaceX, preparations for major Super Heavy testing will hopefully resume. SpaceX has yet to perform a full Super Heavy wet dress rehearsal (WDR; fully filling a rocket’s tanks and performing a launch countdown) or fire up more than three Raptors on a booster or ship prototype. With any luck, that will finally change in the final months of 2021.
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
