News
SpaceX Starship factory overflowing with new and flight-proven rockets
After a relatively relaxed period of production and testing, SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory is practically overflowing with new and flight-proven ships as the company prepares for the rocket’s next major tests.
Even before the one-off Starship Mk1 prototype failed a pressure test late last year, SpaceX was in the process of upgrading its Boca Chica production facilities and refining the ship’s design and manufacturing processes. Starship SN1, the first prototype built as part of that upgrade, rolled to the launch pad on February 25th, 2020, followed by Starship SN2 (turned into a test tank) just a week or so later. Starship SN3 and SN4 would both follow in early and late April, ultimately ending with the latter prototype’s spectacularly violent demise in late May.
Over the remaining three or so months, the pace of testing has slowed a bit as SpaceX’s Starship development program enters the full-scale flight testing phase. Starship SN5 began testing on July 1st, followed by SN6 around six weeks later. Both prototypes successfully hopped just 30 days apart. Now, although SpaceX still plans to hop SN5 a second time and may hop SN6 twice, too, the Starship program’s focus has shifted to high-altitude, high-velocity flight tests and the adoption of a new steel alloy.
Presumably in anticipation of a learning curve as that new steel alloy begins to be tested at full-scale for the first times, SpaceX is churning out Starship prototypes at an unprecedented pace. Intriguingly, that production ramp is hinged upon the assumption that a 304L-class steel alloy (compared to the 301 stainless steel used to build SN1 through SN6) will be as good or better than 301 steel in every significant way.
Currently, that assumption isn’t entirely baseless but is still built upon the success of Starship SN7, SpaceX’s first 304L test tank. SpaceX never confirmed its results but it’s believed that that test tank – more of a material demonstrator than an actual structural Starship prototype – surpassed all previous pressure records before it burst in June.
Given that SN7 performed quite well, it’s at least a bit less surprising that SpaceX is hinging months of work and at least four full-scale Starship prototypes on an otherwise unproven steel alloy. The next big test for 304L Starships will be a second test tank known as SN7.1. Rolled to the test site on September 7th, essentially as soon as Starship SN6 was safed and returned to the factory after its hop debut, SN7.1 is significantly more complex than its sibling and will test a ~304L Raptor mount (thrust puck) and skirt section. The forces and general conditions those new parts will be subjected to are substantially different than most of what SN7 was subjected to, meaning that there is a chance that 304L steel is less optimal in different scenarios.
With any luck, SN7.1’s test campaign – scheduled to begin as early as 9pm CDT (UTC-5), September 10th (today) – will be a flawless success, proving that SpaceX’s new steel alloy is universally superior to 301 for Starship-related applications. If that’s the case, Starship SN8 – the first full new-alloy prototype – will likely be fully outfitted with a nosecone and header tanks before beginning acceptance testing.
Eventually, if SN7.1 aces its tests and SN8 performs well during preflight preparations, Starship SN8 could become the first prototype to launch with a full nose, header tanks, and flaps, as well as the first to fly with three Raptor engines. If Starship SN8 fails for any reason or is damaged during testing, though, it appears that SpaceX will have no shortage of ships built out of the same new steel alloy to choose from.
In just the last ten days, labeled parts and rings for Starships SN9, SN10, and SN11 have all been spotted, implying that SpaceX is concurrently building at least four new Starships. Notably, both Starships SN9 and SN11 already appear to have some of the studs needed for heat shield tile installation affixed to sections of their steel hulls. Based on the sheer number of steel ring stacks spotted over the last week, it’s also safe to assume that SN9’s tank section (and possibly SN10’s, too) is largely prefabricated.
Assuming two of the in-work nosecones are ultimately meant for flight, SpaceX may already have enough hardware on hand to fully assemble two Starships (presumably SN8 and SN9) – including nosecones, header tanks, nose rings, and flaps. It’s safe to say that if SN7.1 achieves its goals, preparations for the first triple Raptor hop, 20 km (~12 mi) test flight, and skydiver-style landing attempt could come together incredibly quickly.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
