Connect with us

News

SpaceX Starship engine test aborted twice in one day by hurricane damage and bugs

Starship SN5 was forced to abort a planned Raptor engine test twice in one day. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal)

Published

on

SpaceX has been unable to catch a break in the last few weeks and CEO Elon Musk says that a Starship Raptor engine test was delayed twice in one day by minor hardware bugs and damage caused by Hurricane Hanna.

Although it quickly devolved into a tropical storm and largely missed the southernmost tip of Texas, where SpaceX has built its Starship factory and test facilities, Hanna caused significant damage just a few dozen miles to the north. Above all else, the flooding caused by Hanna has by far been the worst part of the storm. Boca Chica managed to dodge the bulk of that element but was still hit by heavy rain that lasted for a day or two, drenching everything that wasn’t covered and nearly flooding the only access road.

According to Musk, an unspecified “connector” related to Starship SN5 or the pad supporting it was damaged by Hanna’s glancing encounter with SpaceX’s facilities. The connector was ultimately fixed around 7-8 pm CDT per unofficial webcasts showing technicians working around the rocket after they returned to the pad, but SpaceX’s test window technically closed at 8 pm CDT (01:00 UTC).

Nevertheless, SpaceX must have been able to work with local sheriffs to extend that road closure into the night, and – as promised by CEO Elon Musk – testing restarted around 9:30 pm CDT. About an hour and a half later, Starship SN5 appeared to make it all the way through a partial wet dress rehearsal before its Raptor engine test fire was aborted a second time. Based on four static fires completed by Starship SN4 in May 2020, the rocket could have been just a few minutes away from ignition.

Advertisement

According to Musk, Starship SN5’s fuel (methane) “spin valve” – presumably a valve that opens to allow methane gas to spin up Raptor’s fuel turbopump – failed to open when it was supposed to. To ensure Raptor’s health after three inactive weeks spent installed on Starship out in the elements, SpaceX likely planned what is known as a “spin prime” test directly prior to the static fire. If Raptor successfully spun up its turbopumps, SpaceX would proceed directly into static fire operations without having to detank Starship.

During SN5’s second July 27th static fire attempt, Raptor was unable to start that spin prime test, forcing SpaceX to stand down to diagnose and fix the problem. Musk says that SpaceX will attempt to static fire Starship SN5 again tomorrow (July 28th) – assuming the issue can be quickly rectified.

Raptor SN27 was installed on Starship SN5 around July 3rd or 4th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Starship SN5 was forced to wait several weeks after its first cryogenic proof test to begin more challenging tests with a Raptor engine and real methane/oxygen propellant. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

Musk further noted that some “odd…behavior” was observed in the hydraulic pump powering Raptor SN27’s thrust vector control (TVC). Used to steer a rocket engine, Raptor doesn’t technically need functioning TVC to perform a static fire test on the ground, but it’s an issue that will have to be completely fixed before Starship SN5 is allowed to attempt its first flight test. If July 28th finally sees SN5 successfully ignite its Raptor engine, there’s a chance – however slim – that SpaceX will be able to turn the Starship around for its first hop just a few days later.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe

Published

on

Credit: Andre Thierig | X

Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.

The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.

Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.

Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.

Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.

In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.

This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.

Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know

Published

on

Credit: CNBC

Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.

The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.

Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.

Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.

The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”

This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.

More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.

We look forward to more details being released with time.

Continue Reading

Cybertruck

Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.

The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.

These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.

It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.

The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:

  • Daytime child crossing
  • Nightitime adult crossing
  • Night parallel adult

In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.

Credit: IIHS

Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.

Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.

Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.

Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.

Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.

The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.

Continue Reading