News
SpaceX frees up orbital launch site for upgraded Super Heavy booster
After ‘destacking’ Starship S20, SpaceX has officially removed Super Heavy Booster B4 from Starbase’s lone orbital launch mount – and likely for the last time.
Standing about 69 meters (~225 ft) tall and likely weighing at least 200 tons (~440,000 lb), Booster 4 has been at SpaceX’s Starbase orbital launch site (OLS) for more than six months – only slightly less time than Starship S20, which it was expected to eventually launch into space. Several of those months were spent sitting on top of the pad’s 22-meter-tall (~70 ft) orbital launch mount, which has been slowly but surely outfitted, modified, and tweaked into something capable of supporting basic Super Heavy testing.
All told, Booster 4 has completed more than half a dozen cryogenic proof tests but never appeared to graduate to more complex and valuable wet dress rehearsals – replacing neutral liquid nitrogen with flammable liquid methane and oxygen propellant to simulate preparations for a real launch. Most importantly, despite having had 29 proof-tested Raptor engines installed for months, Super Heavy B4 never even attempted to static fire one of those engines, where a successful 29-engine static fire is probably the single most important test a booster will need to pass to be cleared for flight.
As a result, the writing has been on the wall for Booster 4 for quite a while. Instead of investing in testing the booster, which has a somewhat outdated two-off design, it appears that SpaceX will instead transfer crucial qualification testing to Super Heavy Booster 7. As previously discussed, on top of general improvements to process and fit and finish throughout, Booster 7 is substantially different from Booster 4.
“Super Heavy B7 and Starship S24 feature a wide range of design changes, including substantially modified header tanks, an entirely new nosecone design, new layouts for secondary systems (pressurization, avionics, heat exchangers, etc.), and more. Most importantly, their thrust structures – giant ‘pucks’ machined out of steel – have been tweaked to support new Raptor V2 engines instead of the Raptor V1 and V1.5 engines that have been installed and tested on all Starship and Super Heavy prototypes to date.”
Teslarati.com – March 22nd, 2022
One could easily argue that SpaceX should have better used the months upon months that Super Heavy B4 sat inactive and largely untouched at Starbase’s launch facilities – instead using that time to perform basic static fire testing that could even have even been done at one of two suborbital launch mounts if the orbital mount wasn’t ready. Nonetheless, irrespective of that seemingly wasted opportunity, it makes sense that SpaceX now wants to cut its losses and redirect its focus to prototypes with extensive upgrades and improvements.
Up next, SpaceX will continue to stack and outfit Starship S24. Already fully stacked, Super Heavy B7 could feasibly be rolled to the orbital launch site at almost any point within the next week or two to begin simpler pneumatic and cryogenic proof testing, followed by Raptor V2 engine installation and the start of static fire testing.
News
Tesla expands Robotaxi geofence, but not the garage
This has broadened its geofence to nearly three times the size of Waymo’s current service area, which is great from a comparative standpoint. However, there seems to be something that also needs to be expanded as the geofence gets larger: the size of the Robotaxi fleet.
Tesla has expanded its Robotaxi geofence four times, once as recently as this week.
However, the company has seemingly kept its fleet size relatively small compared to the size of the service area, making some people — even pro-Tesla influencers — ask for more transparency and an expansion of the number of vehicles it has operating.
Over the past four months, Tesla has done an excellent job of maintaining growth with its service area in Austin as it continues to roll out the early stages of what is the Robotaxi platform.
The most recent expansion brought its size from 170 square miles (440.298 sq. km) to 243 square miles (629.367 sq. km).
Tesla sends clear message to Waymo with latest Austin Robotaxi move
This has broadened its geofence to nearly three times the size of Waymo’s current service area, which is great from a comparative standpoint. However, there seems to be something that also needs to be expanded as the geofence gets larger: the size of the Robotaxi fleet.
Tesla has never revealed exactly how many Model Y vehicles it is using in Austin for its partially driverless ride-hailing service (We say partial because the Safety Monitor moves to the driver’s seat for freeway routes).
When it first launched Robotaxi, Tesla said it would be a small fleet size, between 10 and 20 vehicles. In late August, after its second expansion of the service area, it then said it “also increased the number of cars available by 50 percent.”
The problem is, nobody knows how many cars were in the fleet to begin with, so there’s no real concrete figure on how many Robotaxis were available.
This has caused some frustration for users, who have talked about the inability to get rides smoothly. As the geofence has gotten larger, there has only been one mentioned increase in the fleet.
Trying to book a RoboTaxi in the new geofence and can’t get paired with a car.
Really think Tesla needs to add more cars to the fleet in Austin. Has become tougher and tougher to use the service reliably @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/KHqea3oUxU
— Farzad (@farzyness) October 29, 2025
Tesla did not reveal any new figures or expansion plans in terms of fleet size in the recent Q3 Earnings Call, but there is still a true frustration among many because the company will not reveal an exact figure.
News
Tesla recalls 6,197 Cybertrucks for light bar adhesive issue
On October 20, Tesla issued a voluntary recall of the impacted vehicles and has identified 619 warranty claims and just a single field report that is related to the issue.
Tesla has recalled 6,197 Cybertrucks for a light bar adhesive issue that was utilized by Service to install the aftermarket part.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), impacted vehicles may have had the light bar “inadvertently attached to the windshield using the incorrect surface primer.”
Tesla identified an issue with the light bar’s adhesion to glass back in February and worked for months to find a solution. In October, the company performed chemical testing as a part of an engineering study and determined the root cause as the BetaPrime primer it utilized, figuring out that it was not the right surface priming material to use for this specific application.
On October 20, Tesla issued a voluntary recall of the impacted vehicles and has identified 619 warranty claims and just a single field report that is related to the issue.
The component is manufactured by a Romanian company called Hella Romania S.R.L., but the issue is not the primer’s quality. Instead, it is simply the fact that it is not the correct adhesive for this specific type of application.
Tesla says there are no reports of injuries or deaths due to this issue, and it will be resolved. In the 473 report that the NHTSA released this morning, Tesla said:
“At no charge to customers, Tesla will inspect the service-installed optional off-road light bar accessory for delamination or damage and if either is present, replace the light bar with a new light bar adhered with tape and a positive mechanical attachment. If no delamination or damage is present, Tesla will retrofit the service-installed optional off-road light bar accessory with a positive mechanical attachment.”
This is the third recall applied to Cybertrucks this year, as one on March 18 highlighted the potential for exterior trim panels to detach while driving, and another earlier this month when the NHTSA said its front parking lights were too bright.
Tesla resolved the first with a free assembly replacement, while the headlight issue was fixed with an Over-the-Air software update earlier this week. Owners said there was a noticeable difference in the brightness of the lights now compared to previously.
Investor's Corner
Tesla investor Calpers opposes Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award
Musk’s 2025 pay plan will be decided at Tesla’s 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, which will be held on November 6 in Giga Texas.
One of the United States’ largest pension funds, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), has stated that it will be voting against Elon Musk’s 2025 Tesla CEO performance award.
Musk’s 2025 pay plan will be decided at Tesla’s 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, which will be held on November 6 in Giga Texas. Company executives have stated that the upcoming vote will decide Tesla’s fate in the years to come.
Why Calpers opposes Musk’s 2025 performance award
In a statement shared with Bloomberg News, a Calpers spokesperson criticized the scale of Musk’s proposed deal. Calpers currently holds about 5 million Tesla shares, giving its stance meaningful influence among institutional investors.
“The CEO pay package proposed by Tesla is larger than pay packages for CEOs in comparable companies by many orders of magnitude. It would also further concentrate power in a single shareholder,” the spokesperson stated.
This is not the first time Calpers has opposed a major Musk pay deal. The fund previously voted against a $56 billion package proposed for Musk and criticized the CEO’s 2018 performance-based plan, which was perceived as unrealistic due to its ambitious nature at the time. Musk’s 2018 pay plan was later struck down by a Delaware court, though Tesla is currently appealing the decision.
Musk’s 2025 CEO Performance Award
While Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award will result in him becoming a trillionaire, he would not be able to receive any compensation from Tesla unless aggressive operational and financial targets are met. For Musk to receive his full compensation, for example, he would have to grow Tesla’s market cap from today’s $1.1 trillion to $8.5 trillion, effectively making it the world’s most valuable company by a mile.
Musk has also maintained that his 2025 performance award is not about compensation. It’s about his controlling stake at Tesla. “If I can just get kicked out in the future by activist shareholder advisory firms who don’t even own Tesla shares themselves, I’m not comfortable with that future,” Musk wrote in a post on X.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News2 weeks agoTesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News2 weeks agoTesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles

