News
SpaceX begins assembling first Starship Super Heavy booster in South Texas
SpaceX has taken the first unequivocal step towards orbital Starship launches, kicking off assembly of the first Super Heavy booster (first stage) – a necessity for recoverable spaceship missions to Earth orbit and beyond.
Although SpaceX could technically get away with building much smaller booster prototypes to support Starship’s initial orbital test flights, perhaps going as far as simply modifying Starship’s proven tank design, rocketry really doesn’t lend itself to modularity. Be it out of confidence or necessity, SpaceX appears to be moving directly from Starship prototype development to full-scale Super Heavy booster production and testing.
The first conveniently labeled Super Heavy booster rings were spotted around September 22nd. In the six or so weeks since then, SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas factory has relentlessly churned out at least as many sections of stacked booster rings – now strewn about the ever-growing campus. No less than seven labeled Super Heavy ring sections have been spotted since the first, equating to fewer than 25 steel rings of the estimated 38-40 needed to complete each booster.
Relying on a tank design almost identical to hardware flight-proven on two separate Starship prototypes, SpaceX is able to use the exact same manufacturing infrastructure for the vast majority of Starship and Super Heavy. In fact, in a flip of the usual relationship, the next-generation rocket’s booster will most likely be far simpler than the upper stage – nominally the largest reusable spacecraft and upper stage ever attempted.
Without the need for a tiled heat shield, a conical nose section, aerodynamic control surfaces (beyond Falcon-style grid fins), or even (perhaps) internal header tanks, the only major challenge unique to Super Heavy is the development of an engine section capable of supporting and feeding as many as 28 Raptor engines. In other words, as long as the basics of Starship are successful and SpaceX is able to design a reliable 28-Raptor thrust structure and associated plumbing, Super Heavy may actually be a much easier problem to solve.
Theory aside, Starship and Super Heavy will unequivocally be the largest spacecraft, upper stage, and rocket booster ever built regardless of their success. While CEO Elon Musk recently stated that a Super Heavy booster could perform hop tests with just two Raptor engines, if necessary, the rocket is ultimately expected to have 20 high-thrust Raptors with minimal throttle capability and an inner ring of eight throttleable, gimballing engines for precision maneuvers.
With all 28 engines operating at full thrust, that particular Super Heavy design would produce an immense 6600 metric tons (14.5 million lbf) of thrust at liftoff – approximately twice the thrust of Saturn V and Soviet N-1 rockets and more than three times the thrust of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy. Measuring ~70m (~230 ft) tall, Super Heavy would weigh at least 3500 metric tons (7.7 million lb) fully loaded with liquid oxygen and methane propellant and – on its own – stand as tall or taller than Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and any other operational rocket on Earth.
Now effectively inaugurated with the first Super Heavy booster (“BN1,” according to SpaceX) hardware, the ~83m (~270 ft) tall high bay will likely be in a near-constant state of activity as teams work to stack and weld the massive steel rocket. Essential to support Starship’s first recoverable orbital launch attempts, it remains to be seen how exactly SpaceX will put the first completed Super Heavy through its paces and what the first booster-supported Starship launches will look like. Regardless, barring major surprises during assembly, Super Heavy booster #1 (BN1) could be more or less complete just a month or two from now.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
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 said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
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.
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.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
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.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
