News
SpaceX Starship passed “cryo proof” test for the first time and here’s what’s next
Elon Musk says a SpaceX Starship prototype has passed a critical “cryo proof” test for the first time, opening the door for the rocket to move on to even bigger tests.
Late on April 26th, SpaceX’s South Texas team (and possibly a console team in California) readied the fourth full-scale Starship prototype (SN4) for its second major test. Known as a cryogenic proof test, it began less than 24 hours after the rocket completed a room-temperature gas pressure test to check for leaks and verify that the pressure vessel was sound. Musk quickly confirmed that Starship SN4 passed through that “ambient proof test” without issue.
For the cryo proof test, room-temperature nitrogen gas was replaced with ultra-cold liquid nitrogen, serving as a chemically neutral (i.e. non-explosive) simulant for Starship’s liquid oxygen and methane propellant. After a few hours of partial loading and offloading cycles meant to ensure that Starship’s valves and propellant supply hardware was working as intended, SpaceX controllers fully filled the rocket with some ~1000 metric tons (2.2 million lb) of liquid nitrogen. Once full, a hydraulic ram setup was activated to exert forces akin to Raptor engines operating at full thrust. After several prior failures, Starship SN4 thus became the first to survive the ordeal and graduate into the next stage of testing.
According to CEO Elon Musk, that next step will be a static fire test with a lone Raptor engine installed. Able to produce at least 200 metric tons of thrust (~450,000 lbf) at full throttle, Raptor is an exceptionally efficient methalox (methane/oxygen) rocket engine designed by SpaceX to power Starship and its Super Heavy booster. Methane and oxygen was chosen in large part because of the relative potential ease of its extraction and refinement on Mars.
Per Musk, that static fire could occur within the next six or so days, meaning that SpaceX will likely install a functional Raptor engine on a full-scale Starship for the first time ever within the next day or two. Before a static fire can be performed, though, another significant test or two will have to be completed.
Known as a wet dress rehearsal (WDR), the first of those tests will be similar to April 26th’s cryo proof but with the neutral liquid nitrogen placed by real liquid oxygen and methane propellant. This is much riskier than the cryo proof in the sense that if a tank failure were to occur or a fire to accidentally start, 1000+ tons of highly-pressurized propellant could easily create a massive explosion and fireball, destroying or damaging much of the surrounding pad equipment. The WDR could potentially be rolled into another Raptor engine test that would verify its preburner performance.
To operate, Raptors first take liquid oxygen and liquid methane into separate parts of the engine and rapidly heat them to turn them into high temperature gas. Those preburners then send that hot gas to separate turbopumps that spin up and allow the engines to keep supplying themselves with large quantities of propellant, followed by the process of actually igniting the engine itself with a complex series of blowtorches.
If the preburner and turbopump spin-up test is successful, SpaceX can then move on to the actual static fire. Featuring a single Raptor engine, Starship SN4 will hopefully become the first full-scale rocket to safely operate a flight-grade engine since SpaceX began full-scale tests in November 2019. If successful, that static fire could pave the way for Starship SN4 to perform a Starhopper-style 150m (500 ft) hop test as early as May 2020 – a hop that would be powered by a single Raptor engine according to Musk.
Starship SN5 will reportedly be the first ship to both have a nosecone installed and three Raptor engines installed if SN4 has a very successful few weeks and that new ship is perhaps just 5-10 days from being fully assembled. In short, things are about to get very busy and very exciting at SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory and launch pad.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
