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.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
