News
SpaceX Starship booster survives record-breaking 31-engine static fire
SpaceX’s Starship rocket has survived a record-breaking engine test – potentially the most powerful static fire in the history of rocketry.
According to CEO Elon Musk, Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7) ultimately ignited 31 of its 33 Raptor engines. One engine was manually disabled “just before” the static fire, while the other faulty engine automatically shut down while attempting to ignite. The other 31 Raptors, however, completed a “full duration” static fire that lasted about five seconds. Musk says that even with two engines disabled, those that remained were “still enough…to reach orbit” – an excellent result despite the static fire’s imperfections.
Most importantly, Super Heavy Booster 7 survived the test without catching fire, exploding, or popping its tanks. To partially counteract the thrust of its Raptor engines, the rocket’s tanks were filled with some 3000 tons (6.6M lbs) of liquid oxygen and methane propellant. The stool-like orbital launch mount (OLM), which also survived the test in one piece, held Starship down with 20 clamps to counteract any remaining thrust. From SpaceX’s perspective, the fact alone that its only orbital-class Starship launch site survived the ordeal is likely enough for it to consider the static fire a success. But the test was much more than that.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Incinerating rocket records
Despite losing two Raptors, SpaceX still broke the all-time record for the number of rocket engines ignited simultaneously. That record was held by the Soviet N1 rocket, which launched four times with 30 NK-15 engines in the late 1960s and early 1970s. None of its test flights were successful, but N1 still set the record for the most thrust produced by a single rocket, generating up to 4500 tons (9.9M lbf) of thrust at liftoff.
Neither SpaceX nor CEO Elon Musk has confirmed it, reducing the odds that Super Heavy Booster 7 broke that historic thrust record. But it certainly could have. Each Raptor 2 engine can generate up to 230 tons (507,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level. Raptor is theoretically designed to throttle as low as 40%, or 92 tons (~200,000 lbf) of thrust. With 33 engines operating nominally at their minimum throttle setting, Super Heavy would have produced 3036 tons (~6.7M lbf) of thrust during today’s static fire – not a record.
For 31 Raptors to break N1’s thrust record, the average throttle setting would have had to be around 64% or higher – far from unreasonable. From a data-gathering perspective, a full-thrust static fire would be the most valuable 33-engine test SpaceX could attempt, but it would also be the riskiest and most stressful for the rocket and pad.
Former SpaceX executive Tom Mueller says that SpaceX broke N1’s record. Mueller is effectively the father of the Raptor engine, and likely still gets information straight from SpaceX engineers he used to work with. Still, one would expect SpaceX itself to proudly confirm as much if a rocket it built became the most powerful in history.
The most powerful rocket test in history?
Whether or not Starship became the most powerful rocket in history, it has likely become the most powerful rocket ever tested on the ground. The first stage of Saturn V produced around 3400 tons (7.5M lbf) of thrust during its first sea-level static fire in 1965. Likely contributing to its failure, N1’s booster was never static-fired. Other powerful rockets like the Space Shuttle and SLS use or used a combination of solid rocket boosters and liquid engines that cannot be tested together on the ground.
Unless SpaceX’s goal was a minimum-throttle static fire, Starship’s 31-Raptor static fire likely beat Saturn V’s record to become the most powerful ground test in the history of rocketry.
SpaceX’s next steps
While the 31 that did ignite appeared to perform about as well as SpaceX could have hoped, the two engines missing from February 9th’s historic Starship static fire have probably complicated the company’s next steps. To be fully confident in Starship’s ability to launch and fly a safe distance away from the launch site, SpaceX would likely need to complete a full 33-engine test. Meanwhile, Starship can’t fly until the Federal Aviation Administration approves a launch license, and the FAA could be stodgy enough to deny SpaceX a license without a perfect 33-engine static fire.
Alternatively, the FAA may accept that Starship could still safely launch and reach orbit while missing several Raptors. SpaceX could also guarantee that it will only allow Starship to lift off if all 33 engines are active, in which case a second 33-engine static fire attempt may not be necessary.
If SpaceX is happy with Booster 7’s 31-engine test results and isn’t too put off by any pad damage the test may or may not have caused, it will likely focus on finishing Starship 24. Ship 24 will then be transported back to the pad and reinstalled on top of Booster 7. SpaceX may choose to conduct another wet dress rehearsal or a static fire with the fully-stacked Starship, but it may also deem additional testing unnecessary.
Once all those tasks are completed, Ship 24 and Booster 7 will be ready to support Starship’s first orbital launch attempt. Prior to February 9th’s static fire, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and COO/President Gwynne Shotwell agreed that Starship’s orbital launch debut could happen as early as March 2023. After today’s test, a March 2023 launch may be within reach.
Rewatch Super Heavy Booster 7’s historic static fire below.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
