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.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla became the first company to pass the United States government’s new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) testing with the Model Y, completing each of the new tests with a passing performance.
In a landmark announcement on May 7, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared the 2026 Tesla Model Y the first vehicle to pass its newly ADAS benchmark under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
Model Y vehicles manufactured on or after November 12, 2025, met rigorous pass/fail criteria for four newly added tests—pedestrian automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assistance, blind spot warning, and blind spot intervention—while also satisfying the program’s original four ADAS requirements: forward collision warning, crash imminent braking, dynamic brake support, and lane departure warning.
The NHTSA has just officially announced that the 2026 @Tesla Model Y is the first vehicle model to pass the agency’s new advanced driver assistance system tests.
2026 Tesla Model Y vehicles, manufactured on or after Nov. 12, 2025, successfully met the new criteria for four… pic.twitter.com/as8x1OsSL5
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 7, 2026
NHTSA administration Jonathan Morrison hailed the achievement as a milestone:
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to provide consumers with the most comprehensive safety ratings ever. By successfully passing these new tests, the 2026 Tesla Model Y demonstrates the lifesaving potential of driver assistance technologies and sets a high bar for the industry. We hope to see many more manufacturers develop vehicles that can meet these requirements.”
The updates to NCAP, finalized in late 2024 and effective for 2026 models, reflect growing recognition that ADAS features are no longer optional luxuries but essential tools for preventing crashes.
Pedestrian automatic emergency braking, for instance, targets one of the fastest-rising causes of roadway fatalities, while blind spot intervention and lane keeping assistance address common sources of side-swipes and run-off-road incidents. By incorporating objective, performance-based evaluations rather than mere presence of the technology, NHTSA aims to give buyers clearer data on real-world effectiveness.
This milestone arrives at a pivotal moment when vehicle autonomy is transitioning from science fiction to everyday reality.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software and the impending rollout of robotaxis underscore a broader industry shift toward higher levels of automation. Yet regulators and consumers remain cautious: safety data must keep pace with technological ambition.
The Model Y’s perfect score on these ADAS benchmarks validates that current driver-assist systems—when engineered rigorously—can dramatically reduce human error, which still accounts for the vast majority of crashes.
For Tesla, the result reinforces its long-standing claim of building the safest vehicles on the road. More importantly, it signals to the entire auto sector that meeting elevated federal standards is achievable and expected.
As autonomy edges closer to Level 3 and beyond, where drivers may disengage more fully, such independent verification becomes critical. It builds public trust, informs purchasing decisions, and accelerates the development of systems that could one day eliminate tens of thousands of annual traffic deaths.
In an era when software-defined vehicles promise transformative mobility, the 2026 Model Y’s NHTSA triumph is more than a manufacturer accolade—it is a regulatory green light that autonomy’s future must be built on proven, testable safety foundations. The bar has been raised. The industry, and the roads we share, will be safer for it.
Tesla is going to fix the nearly 219,000 vehicles that it recalled due to an issue with the rearview camera with a simple software update, giving owners no need to travel to a service center to resolve the problem.
Tesla is formally recalling 218,868 U.S. vehicles after regulators discovered a software glitch that can delay the rearview camera image by up to 11 seconds when drivers shift into reverse.
The affected models include certain 2024-2025 Model 3 and Model Y, as well as 2023-2025 Model S and Model X vehicles running software version 2026.8.6 and equipped with Hardware 3 computers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined the lag violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 on rear visibility and could increase crash risk.
Yet this is no ordinary recall. Owners do not need to schedule a service-center visit, hand over keys, or wait for parts.
Tesla fans call for recall terminology update, but the NHTSA isn’t convinced it’s needed
Tesla identified the issue on April 10, halted further deployment of the faulty firmware the same day, and began pushing a corrective over-the-air (OTA) software update on April 11.
By the time the NHTSA posted the recall notice on May 6, more than 99.92 percent of the affected fleet had already received the fix. Tesla reports no crashes, injuries, or fatalities linked to the glitch.
The episode underscores a deeper problem with regulatory language. For decades, “recall” meant hauling a vehicle to a dealership for hardware repairs or replacements. That definition no longer fits software-defined cars. When a fix arrives wirelessly in minutes — identical to an iPhone update — the term evokes unnecessary alarm and misleads the public about the actual risk and remedy.
Elon Musk has repeatedly called for exactly this change. After earlier NHTSA actions, he stated plainly: “The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update.” On another occasion, he added that labeling OTA fixes as recalls is “anachronistic and just flat wrong.”
The terminology is outdated & inaccurate. This is a tiny over-the-air software update. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no injuries.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2022
Musk’s point is simple: regulators must evolve their vocabulary to match the technology. Traditional recalls involve physical intervention and downtime; OTA updates do not. Retaining the old label distorts consumer perception, inflates perceived defect rates, and slows the industry’s shift to faster, safer software iteration.
Tesla’s rapid, remote remedy demonstrates the safety advantage of over-the-air capability. Problems that once required weeks of dealer appointments are now resolved in hours, often before most owners notice. As more automakers adopt software-first designs, the entire regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Updating “recall” terminology would align language with reality, reduce public confusion, and recognize that modern vehicles are no longer static hardware — they are continuously improving computers on wheels.
For the 219,000 Tesla owners involved, the process is already complete. The camera works, the car is safe, and no one left their driveway. That is the new standard — and the vocabulary should reflect it.
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
