News
SpaceX scraps Florida Starship Mk2 prototype
SpaceX has scrapped the lone Starship prototype built in Florida in 2019, surprising very few.
Beginning a few months after work began on Starship Mk1 at SpaceX’s South Texas production facilities, a separate team in Cocoa, Florida was tasked with building a similar Starship Mk2 prototype. Not much is known about Mk2 relative to its much more publicized sibling but unofficial photos and videos taken over the course of 2019 suggested that SpaceX had effectively completed most of Starship Mk2 by the end of last year. However, built dozens of miles and several waterways away from a practical test facility, actually testing a Starship prototype assembled at SpaceX’s Cocoa facilities was always going to be an uphill battle.
To warrant the cost and effort that would be required to transport something as large as a vertical Starship from Cocoa, Florida to Cape Canaveral, Mk2 would have to be able offer something invaluable during testing. Now eight months after Starship Mk1 was destroyed during one of its first real tests, that was sadly not the case and SpaceX has chosen the simplest route forward – scrapping Mk2 where it sits.
In November 2019, SpaceX installed Starship Mk1 on a test stand in Boca Chica, Texas and began a series of tests. The ship passed an initial ambient temperature pressure test on the 18th but failed spectacularly during its first cryogenic proof test, said by SpaceX to have “pressurize[d] systems to the max.” Excluding Starhopper, Starship Mk1 was about as rough of a prototype as SpaceX could have feasibly built and the fact that it survived any length of time under cryogenic loads and pressures was fairly impressive.
Welded together almost entirely out in elements on the South Texas Gulf coast, the total success of Starship Mk1 (and its similar Mk2 sibling) would have flown in the face of almost every single tenet of modern aerospace production. As noted in a Teslarati article describing the Starship’s demise, the Mk1 production apparatus left plenty of room for improvement.
“[Videos of the failure implicated] the weld connecting the LOX dome to the cylindrical body of Starship’s LOX tank, pointing to a bad weld joint as the likeliest source of the failure. Although that hardware failure is unfortunate, Mk1’s loss will hopefully guide improvements in Starship’s design and manufacturing procedures.”
Teslarati.com — November 20th, 2019
That is precisely what SpaceX did – and was likely already doing – in response to Mk1’s failure. Just two months later, SpaceX successfully tested a steel Starship tank built in upgraded facilities with upgraded methods and reached pressures of 7.1 bar (~103 psi) before failing – likely a 50% improvement or better relative to Mk1. A second tank completed weeks later in late January 2020 reached 7.5 bar, sprung a leak, was repaired, and ultimately soared to 8.5 bar (~125 psi) before failing. Per CEO Elon Musk, that would technically be enough for a Starship to launch humans into orbit with an industry-standard ~40% safety factor.
Finally, SpaceX recently proved that a full-scale, two-tank Starship prototype built with the same methods and facilities as those test tanks could achieve the same results, completing a ~7.5 bar (~110 psi) cryogenic proof test with Starship SN4 on May 10th.
Long story short, the methods SpaceX used to build Starship Mk1 and Mk2 were already proven redundant more than six months ago and buried even deeper in May 2020. Aside from serving as a museum piece, Starship Mk2’s fate was sealed – the only real question was how and when it would be scrapped. For now, SpaceX’s Starship program will be almost exclusively stationed in South Texas, where it appears to be in good hands. Starship SN5 is currently expected to attempt its first wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire tests no earlier than July 17th (today) at 8 am CDT (13:00 UTC).
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Tesla’s breakthroughs with its 4680 battery cell program mark a significant milestone for the electric vehicle maker. This was, at least, as per Elon Musk in a recent post on social media platform X.
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Why dry-electrode matters
In a post on X, Elon Musk stated that making the dry-electrode process work at scale was “incredibly difficult,” calling it a major achievement for Tesla’s engineering, production, and supply chain teams, as well as its partner suppliers. He also shared his praise for the Tesla team for overcoming such a difficult task.
“Making the dry electrode process work at scale, which is a major breakthrough in lithium battery production technology, was incredibly difficult. Congratulations to the @Tesla engineering, production and supply chain teams and our strategic partner suppliers for this excellent achievement!” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla’s official X account expanded on Musk’s remarks, stating that dry-electrode manufacturing “cuts cost, energy use & factory complexity while dramatically increasing scalability.” Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, also stated that “Getting dry electrode technology to scale is just the beginning.”
Tesla’s 4680 battery program
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept at Battery Day in 2020, positioning it as a way to eliminate solvent-based electrode drying, shrink factory footprints, and lower capital expenditures. While Tesla has produced 4680 cells for some time, the dry cathode portion of the process proved far more difficult to industrialize than expected.
Together with its confirmation that it is producing 4680 cells in Austin with both electrodes manufactured using the dry process, Tesla has also stated that it has begun producing Model Y vehicles with 4680 battery packs. As per Tesla, this strategy was adopted as a safety layer against trade barriers and tariff risks.
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks,” Tesla wrote in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
News
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Even Tesla China seems to have caught the Optimus V3 fever, with the electric vehicle maker teasing the impending arrival of the humanoid robot on its official Weibo account.
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Tesla China hypes up Optimus V3
Tesla China noted on its Weibo post that Optimus V3 is redesigned from first principles and is capable of learning new tasks by observing human behavior. The company has stated that it is targeting annual production capacity of up to one million humanoid robots once manufacturing scales.
During the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla will wind down Model S and Model X production to free up factory space for the pilot production line of Optimus V3.
Musk later noted that Giga Texas should have a significantly larger Optimus line, though that will produce Optimus V4. He also made it a point to set expectations with Optimus’ production ramp, stating that the “normal S curve of manufacturing ramp will be longer for Optimus.”
Tesla China’s potential role
Tesla’s decision to announce the Optimus update on Weibo highlights the importance of the humanoid robot in the company’s global operations. Giga Shanghai is already Tesla’s largest manufacturing hub by volume, and Musk has repeatedly described China’s manufacturers as Tesla’s most legitimate competitors.
While Tesla has not confirmed where Optimus V3 will be produced or deployed first, the scale and efficiency of Gigafactory Shanghai make it a plausible candidate for future humanoid robot manufacturing or in-factory deployment. Musk has also suggested that Optimus could become available for public purchase as early as 2027, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
“It’s going to be a very capable robot. I think long-term Optimus will have a very significant impact on the US GDP. It will actually move the needle on US GDP significantly. In conclusion, there are still many who doubt our ambitions for creating amazing abundance. We are confident it can be done, and we are making the right moves technologically to ensure that it does,” Musk said during the earnings call.
Elon Musk
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020.
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees
As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay.
As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.
The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.
Other settlement terms still intact
The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million.
Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”
The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
