News
SpaceX Starship just aced another explosive tank test and Elon Musk has the results [video]
SpaceX has successfully repaired a leak in a Starship prototype, filled the giant tank with an ultra-cold liquid, and pressurized it until it (spectacularly) popped — and Elon Musk has the preliminary results.
Designed to determine the quality and capabilities of SpaceX’s current manufacturing and integration procedures, the company technically performed its first explosive Starship test back in November 2019, when it decided that the first full-scale prototype – Starship Mk1 – was not fit to fly. Instead of entering the final stages of assembly with a vehicle that SpaceX simply couldn’t be sure would survive the rigors of even a low-stress flight test, the massive vehicle’s tank section was installed at the company’s South Texas launch facilities and pressurized with liquid nitrogen until it burst.
Built almost entirely unprotected on the South Texas coast, Starship Mk1 simply wasn’t up to the standards needed for SpaceX to trust that the giant rocket would survive the stresses of flight. Much like Falcon 9, Starship and its Super Heavy booster will be structurally stable while their tanks are empty, but a great deal of additional (and absolutely critical) structural strength will be added by pressurizing those tanks with a combination of liquid and gaseous propellant. Achieving the required pressures, however, can be a major challenge and the purpose of test tanks like the one above is to prove that the company is up to the challenge. According to Elon Musk, after tonight’s test, SpaceX almost certainly is.
In all truthfulness, the real start of explosive Starship pressure testing actually happened all the way back in 2017 when SpaceX intentionally pressurized a vast 12m-diameter (40 ft) carbon composite tank until it popped. Back then, Starship was known as Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) and was designed to use carbon fiber composites for nearly all of its structure — propellant tanks included.
According to CEO Elon Musk, said carbon composite tank met SpaceX’s expectations (i.e. the necessary pressures for flight) and was pushed to 2.3 bar (33 psi) before it burst in a rather spectacular fashion, launching almost 100 m (300 ft) into the air. Around 2.5 years after that test, it’s believed that Starship Mk1 reached something like 3-5 bar before it popped, and Musk recently revealed that the new steel Starship and Super Heavy designs will require tanks pressures of at least 6 bar (90 psi) to survive the stresses of orbital flight.
Thankfully, although Starship Mk1 didn’t achieve those necessary pressures, the prototype was effectively a worst-case scenario for manufacturing and assembly, revealing the rather unsurprising reality that SpaceX needed to improve its uniquely sparse methods of production and assembly. Although the stainless steel SpaceX settled on for Starship is much more tolerant than aluminum or most other metals when it comes to welding, steel welds still suffer if exposed to more than a minor breeze, as wind will cause the welded metal to cool less than uniformly.
With the latest series of steel Starship tank prototypes, SpaceX has significantly improved its production infrastructure, finally offering at least a semblance of protection against the elements. Based on the first test tank’s explosive performance on January 10th, those improvements have paid dividends. According to Musk, test tank #1 made it all the way to 7.1 bar (105 psi) before it burst and test tank #2 reportedly did even better.
Meanwhile, SpaceX’s South Texas team has already finished and partially tested a second Starship test tank, ultimately reaching 7.5 bar with water before a small leak sprung on January 27th. Over the last 24 hours, technicians have worked to repair the apparently minor damage and began filling the Starship tank with ultra-cold liquid nitrogen (boiling point: -196°C / -320°F) around 5:30 pm CST (23:30 UTC) on January 28th. After filling with liquid nitrogen, SpaceX kept the steel tank topped off for several hours. The likely purpose behind that otherwise odd move: something called cryogenic hardening. By exposing certain types of steel to liquid nitrogen temperatures, the material can be dramatically strengthened in some regards.
Around four hours after Tuesday evening’s testing began, the Starship tank prototype appeared to develop a significant leak in its upper dome, hemorrhaging liquid nitrogen that immediately produced large clouds after coming into contact with the South Texas air. As it turns out, whatever was observed was almost certainly not a leak: 30 or so minutes later, the tank was pressurized to failure, releasing a spectacular tidal wave of liquid nitrogen that doused the surrounding area, temporarily killing nearby floodlights and creating a near-zero-visibility storm of fog.
We’ll have to wait for dawn tomorrow to see the extent of the damage, but it appears that Test Tank #2’s demise was dramatically more violent than its predecessor — a largely expected side effect of performing the pressure test with a cryogenic liquid. In fact, just minutes after it appeared to fail, Elon Musk revealed that the second test tank had burst around 8.5 bar (~125 psi), soundly trouncing all records set by earlier tests and suggesting SpaceX is unequivocally ready to begin building the first orbital Starships. Critically, Musk had previously indicated that if Starship’s tanks could survive up to 8.5 bar, SpaceX would have the minimum safety margins it needs to deem Starship safe enough for astronauts.
In other words, if Test Tank #2 really did reach 8.5 bar, SpaceX has effectively solved the biggest structural engineering challenge its Starship program faces, kicking the doors wide open for the more or less immediate mass-production of the first giant orbital-class spacecraft. As it turns out, what Musk has deemed as the first “orbital” Starship prototype – ‘SN01’ – is already under construction, and it’s safe to say that any lessons learned from January 28th’s cryogenic pressure test will be fed back into SN01 and all future prototypes.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
News
Tesla discloses two Robotaxi crashes to NHTSA
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
Tesla has disclosed information on two low-speed crashes that occurred in Austin with its Robotaxi platform. These incidents occurred with teleoperators steering the vehicle, and there were no passengers in the car at the time they happened.
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
The first crash took place in July 2025, shortly after Tesla launched its nascent Robotaxi network in Austin. The ADS reportedly struggled to move forward while stopped on a street. A teleoperator assumed control, gradually accelerating and turning left toward the roadside. The vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a metal fence.
In the second incident, in January 2026, the ADS was traveling straight when the safety monitor requested navigation support. The teleoperator took over from a stop, continued forward, and collided with a temporary construction barricade at approximately 9 mph, scraping the front-left fender and tire.
Tesla Robotaxi service in Austin achieves monumental new accomplishment
Tesla has previously told lawmakers that teleoperators are authorized to pilot vehicles remotely—but only at speeds below 10 mph, as the only maneuvers they were approved to perform were repositioning in awkward areas.
“This capability enables Tesla to promptly move a vehicle that may be in a compromising position, thereby mitigating the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually recover the vehicle,” the company stated in filings earlier this year.
Before this week, Tesla redacted the NHTSA reports, but they decided to reveal all 17 Robotaxi incidents recorded since the launch in Austin last Summer. Most of the other crashes involved the Tesla being struck by other road users and were not caused by the self-driving suite itself.
There were other incidents, including two additional self-caused accidents involving the ADS clipping side mirrors on parked cars. In September 2025, one Robotaxi struck a dog that darted into the roadway (the dog escaped unharmed), while another made an unprotected left turn into a parking lot and hit a metal chain.
Although Waymo and Zoox have reported more total crashes, Tesla operates at a far smaller scale. The cautious pace reflects the company’s broader safety concerns; it has been very slow with the Robotaxi rollout to ensure the suite is ready for operation.
Last month, CEO Elon Musk acknowledged that “making sure things are completely safe” remains the primary bottleneck to expanding the network, describing the company’s approach as “very cautious.”
The unredacted filings arrive amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA recently closed a separate probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software repeatedly striking parking-lot obstacles such as bollards and chains—a problem that also prompted a recall at Waymo last year.
Tesla Robotaxi has been a widely successful program in its early days of operation, and the transparency Tesla brings here is greatly appreciated. Incidents will happen, of course, but the honesty gives customers and regulators a sense of where Tesla is in terms of developing its self-driving and fully autonomous ride-hailing suite.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
