News
SpaceX’s Starship Mk1 prototype heads to the launch pad – but why?
SpaceX has transported (half of) its Starship Mk1 prototype to its South Texas launch pad for the first time ever, signifying that the company is about to enter a major new stage of testing.
The move, however, raises the question: why is SpaceX transporting only half of Starship Mk1 to the launch pad?
Following SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s September 28th presentation on Starship, the spacecraft prototype was partially disassembled, having essentially been mocked up to stand as a backdrop at the event. The impact was fairly minor, taking up no more than a few days of work, but Starship Mk1 remains in two large, separate pieces – a curved nose section and the ship’s cylindrical propellant tank and propulsion section.
A little over a month after Musk’s presentation, SpaceX technicians freed Starship Mk1’s lower tank section from a steel mount and temporarily installed the giant half-spacecraft on framework mounted to a Roll Lift transporter. SpaceX has consistently relied on Roll Lifts for the task of transporting Starship’s massive segments both around and between its Boca Chica, Texas build and launch facilities. This time around, only Starship Mk1’s lower half was loaded onto the transporter before being staged overnight near the main gate of SpaceX’s build site.
Although work continued throughout the night, around dawn on October 30th, transport activity restarted in earnest, with technicians preparing to move Starship. A road closure filed with Cameron County suggested that something would occur on the 30th, with followers speculating that Starship Mk1 would be transported to SpaceX’s South Texas launch pad. As it turned out, that speculation was correct, and (half of) Starship Mk1 was indeed moved to the launch pad and installed atop a new launch mount that was built from scratch in just a few months.
(Half a) Starship on the pad
While it’s undeniably thrilling to see Starship Mk1 head to SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch pad for the first time ever, it remains to be seen why exactly only half of the rocket was transported – no mean feat. Although a great deal of progress has been made over the last month outfitting Starship Mk1 with all the wiring, electronics, plumbing, and other subsystems the prototype will need to function, it’s plainly visible that a significant amount of work remains before Starship will be ready for integrated testing.
Most notably, as pictured above, the launch mount frame is certainly more or less complete, but most of the complex plumbing, wiring, and power equipment it will need to serve its function is not obviously present. There is admittedly a possibility that SpaceX will reuse the ‘quick disconnect’ umbilical ports used by Starhopper on Starship Mk1, but that remains to be seen.
Additionally, Starship Mk1 also has some level of work left before it will be ready for its first propellant loading test, let alone flight. Aside from a large amount of wiring and avionics that still needs to be partially run, harnessed, and connected, Starship’s main liquid oxygen and methane feedlines – needed to fuel the rocket – are largely complete but still unfinished.
There are at least a few obvious possible explanations for SpaceX moving the Starship Mk1 tank section to the launch pad in its partially-finished state. The easiest explanation is that SpaceX wants to perform leak and pressure tests of Starship’s tanks as early as possible, even if that involves testing the rocket without its nose (the host of Mk1’s batteries, power controllers, COPVs, pressurization tanks, and more). It’s not clear that Starship Mk1 is – at present – capable of performing a wet dress rehearsal (WDR), a common aerospace test where a rocket is fully fueled and counts down to launch without actually igniting.
Instead, SpaceX could potentially perform a pressure (or at least leak) test with a neutral gas (or perhaps liquid nitrogen) just to verify that Starship Mk1 is structurally sound before kicking off cryogenic propellant loading. Additionally, it’s possible that SpaceX could get around Mk1’s incomplete propellant feed lines by attaching pad umbilicals directly to the ends of the incomplete feed lines.
At the same time, it’s possible that SpaceX has decided to finish assembling Starship at the launch pad itself, hinted at when a local photographer captured a number of Mk1’s control surfaces and aero covers being moved around shortly after Starship was moved to the pad. Time will tell. For the time being, SpaceX has no more road closures scheduled (meaning no nose section transport) until November 7th and 8th, followed by another on the 12th.
Stay tuned to find out what transpires!
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
