News
SpaceX rolls first Starship booster hardware to launch site
While destined to remain on the ground, SpaceX has rolled Starship booster hardware to its Boca Chica, Texas launch pad for the first time.
Back in March, SpaceX completed the process of stacking Super Heavy booster number 1 (BN1), creating what amounted to the largest rocket booster ever assembled. Plans and designs ultimately changed during that several-month process, leading SpaceX to write off the first completed Starship booster structure as a “pathfinder” and scrap it before it could complete a single test. As a result, BN1 never made it to SpaceX’s nearby launch and test facilities and was unceremoniously cut into pieces days later.
Ten weeks after that development, SpaceX is well into the process of stacking its first flightworthy Super Heavy booster (BN2 or BN3) and has officially delivered the first real booster hardware to the launch site for crucial qualification testing.
While only a ‘test tank,’ BN2.1’s arrival at SpaceX’s South Texas launch facilities is an undeniable sign that the company has finally settled on some sort of firm design for Starship’s first-stage booster – at least enough for a custom test article to be worth the time, effort, and money to build and test. BN2.1 is the eighth custom test tank built by SpaceX in the last ~18 months but it’s the first such test article to center around hardware specific to Super Heavy.
Technically, thanks to the fact that Starship and Super Heavy are built out of the exact same steel rings, baffles, and stringers with almost identical production hardware, all past test tanks – and even full Starships – simultaneously mature large portions of Starship’s booster.
Super Heavy requires several unique parts and sections, though. Unlike Starship, which is designed to ultimately have six Raptor engines installed, the ship’s booster will have anywhere from 29 to 32 Raptors and have to withstand almost five times the mechanical stress. That necessitates a drastically different thrust structure for Super Heavy, as well as all additional structural elements to support the 20 Raptor engines – compared to three on Starship – that will mount to the interior wall of its skirt rings.
Beyond Super Heavy’s thrust puck, the booster also requires a much larger transfer tube to feed far more liquid methane through its oxygen tank, a custom dome to connect to that transfer tube, and a custom forward dome and ring section to support four vast grid fins.
BN2.1 is never going to (intentionally) fly and is just a single test tank, which rules out installing actual engines. Now routine, SpaceX’s solution to that challenge of qualifying new hardware without risking catastrophic pad damage has involved building short ‘test tanks’ that are then filled with nonexplosive liquid nitrogen (LN2) and mechanically stressed with hydraulic rams instead of actual engines. Thus far, that process has seemingly been successful time and time again and has helped SpaceX qualify new steel alloys, thinner skin, new welding techniques, and new ‘thrust puck’ designs for Starship.
SpaceX has also tested early full-scale prototypes with the same hydraulic ram systems as a further hedge against quality assurance or fluke design issues that might not have been caught with test tanks. Whether or not BN2.1 is successful, it’s safe to assume that SpaceX will put its first flightworthy Super Heavy booster through a similar thrust puck stress test before attempting wet dress rehearsals or static fires.
Wasting no time at all, SpaceX has already scheduled road closures for what is likely BN2.1’s first round of tests no earlier than (NET) 12pm to 8pm CDT (17:00-03:00 UTC) on Monday, June 7th, with backup windows on the 8th and 9th. Stay tuned to find out if Super Heavy’s thrust puck survives its first nine-engine thrust puck shuck.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.
The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable.
As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
