News
SpaceX Starship booster heads to launch pad for the fifth time
For the fifth time in five months, SpaceX has transported its most advanced Starship booster prototype from the Starbase factory to the launch pad, setting the stage for another round of testing.
Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7) returned to the factory for the fourth time on August 12th after becoming the first prototype of any kind to perform a static fire engine test while installed on SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch mount. In the days prior, the booster completed two back-to-back static fire tests with one of the 20 Raptor engines installed on the rocket, both of which apparently gave SpaceX enough confidence to prepare for the next phase of testing.
That relatively cautious progress only came after SpaceX attempted to test all 33 of the prototype’s Raptors at once during its first engine test. Whether it was the fault of overzealous managers or executives or a genuine oversight is not clear, but the combined behavior of Super Heavy and the orbital launch pad was not properly characterized before testing began. As a result, the cloud of flammable gas the rocket released during its attempted 33-engine ‘spin-prime’ test found an ignition source and violently exploded on July 11th, causing damage throughout Booster 7’s aft engine section that required several weeks of repairs between July 15th and August 6th.
When the Super Heavy rolled to the pad for the fourth time on August 6th, it was missing all 13 center Raptors, leaving only the outer ring of 20 Raptor Boost engines partially installed for the tests that followed. Thankfully, things went much better on the second try and Booster 7 completed two spin-prime tests with a single Raptor engine, followed by two successful static fire tests on August 9th and 11th. The latter test was the longest Starbase static fire ever (by a factor of ~3) and lasted about 20 seconds, allowing SpaceX to test Booster 7’s autogenous pressurization. That system pressurizes Super Heavy’s tanks by turning small quantities of cryogenic liquid propellant into gas, ensuring that its tanks remain stable as they’re rapidly drained of thousands of tons of propellant.
On August 12th, Booster 7 returned to the factory, where workers installed the rocket’s 13 center engines for the second time. Booster 7 headed back to the orbital launch site (OLS) on August 23rd and the pad’s robotic launch tower used a pair of arms to lift the rocket off its transport stand and place it on the launch mount by the end of the day.
In addition to readying Booster 7 for its next phase of static fire testing, teams of SpaceX workers took advantage of the unplanned lull in testing to modify the orbital launch mount. It’s impossible to know what exactly was done without official confirmation, but it’s likely that SpaceX was attempting to quickly fix the shortcoming(s) that allowed the July 11th explosion to happen. Without a fix, it’s unlikely that SpaceX would want to proceed with plans to ignite large numbers of Raptor engines simultaneously – a series of tests that must be completed before Starship can safely attempt its first orbital launch.
It’s unclear what exactly that fix entails, but it could involve a system to constantly flood the engine section with fire-stopping nitrogen gas or potentially take the shape of a system of vents that will connect to every Raptor engine and remove methane gas before it can turn into flammable clouds.
It’s possible that Booster 7 has returned to the launch pad solely for fit checks or some other basic proof-of-concept testing. It’s also possible that the returns signifies that SpaceX is confident in its quick launch mount fix and ready to restart static fire testing.
As Booster 7 prepares for that next phase of testing, SpaceX may also be ready to restart static fire testing with Starship S24, which paused shortly before Super Heavy returned to the factory. SpaceX appears to be modifying the suborbital launch mount and test stand Ship 24 is installed on, which could explain the lack of ship testing since August 11th. SpaceX has 12-hour test windows tentatively scheduled on August 24th and 25th, either of which could be used to test either or both prototypes.
If all goes to plan, Ship 24 and Booster 7 will eventually complete all the qualification testing SpaceX can throw at them and be ready to support Starship’s first orbital launch attempt sometime before the end of 2022.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
