News
SpaceX stacks Starship nose section for the first time in months
SpaceX has stacked a Starship nosecone section to its full height for the first time in almost a year, featuring an upgraded design that could soon support an ambitious series of flight tests.
Back in August 2019, SpaceX first began stacking the nose section of Starship Mk1 – the first full-scale prototype of any kind. It became clear a few months later that Starship Mk1 was more of a rough proof of concept than a full-fidelity test article, but it still became the first (and only, so far) Starship to reach its full ~50m (~160 ft) height. After serving as a centerpiece during CEO Elon Musk’s September 2019 Starship presentation, SpaceX removed the nose and attempted to test the Mk1 tank section itself, ultimately destroying the ship.
Now eight months distant from Mk1’s demise, SpaceX’s Starship R&D program has entered the prototype mass-production phase. Since January 2020, SpaceX has built five upgraded Starship tank sections (and tested three to destruction), built and tested four stout test tanks, and completed at least 4-5 new nosecone prototypes. For the first time since nosecone production began several months ago, one of the noses has finally been stacked to its full height atop five steel rings.
At the moment, SpaceX is hard at work preparing Starship SN5 for its first wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) with methane and oxygen propellant and either one or several Raptor engine static fire tests. If successful, SpaceX will quickly move to flight test preparations, readying SN5 for a nominal ~150m (~500 ft) hop, though the company is technically no longer restricted to that ceiling. For such a low-altitude test, aerodynamic features like a nosecone or flaps serve no functional purpose, meaning that SN5 is unlikely to ever receive those additions.
Roughly two miles west of the coastal launch and test site SN5 is stationed at, SpaceX has already more or less finished Starship SN6, although the newest ship’s fate is unclear. Pictured above on July 10th, the task of stacking an even newer ship (likely SN8) may already be underway. Last month, SpaceX tested a new ‘test tank’ built out of a different steel alloy said by CEO Elon Musk to be theoretically superior. Two cryogenic pressure tests seemingly confirmed that suspicion, proving that 304L stainless steel fails more gracefully than 301 while still offering similar strength at the pressures Starships operate at. The SN7 test tank was built and tested around the same time as SpaceX was finishing up SN6, implying that the ship was almost certainly built out of 301 steel.
If 304L really is the way forward for future Starship prototypes, the next step will be building an entire ship out of the steel alloy and performing a full cryogenic proof test and wet dress rehearsal. Given that SN5 and SN6 are likely identical (or nearly so), SN6 may have been made redundant before the ship even left the factory floor.
This is all to say that it’s a bit of a mystery where the first upgraded nosecone will find itself in the coming weeks. Like SN6 or SN7, it could either be redundant on arrival, built as practice, or both. It could also be the first nosecone installed on a flightworthy Starship prototype. It’s unlikely but not impossible that SN5 survives its static fires and first hops and is modified to support three Raptors and aerodynamic control surfaces, while SN8 and SN9 are more probable candidates for the first high-altitude, high-velocity test flight(s). SpaceX has at least 3-5 more Starship nosecones strewn about its Boca Chica factory, though, so odds are good that the first new nose section to reach full height won’t be the first to take flight.
For now, Starship SN5 (sans nose) is scheduled to attempt its first wet dress rehearsal (WDR) no earlier than July 16th. If successful, a static fire could follow a few days after that and a hop test another few days later.
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
