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.
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
