News
SpaceX’s Starship program returns to its roots with a new rocket ‘test tank’
SpaceX’s Starship rocket development program has returned to its early-2020 roots as teams work to assemble the first new ‘test tank’ built in South Texas in more than three months.
Just like its three predecessors, the newest test tank’s purpose is relatively simple: demonstrate – at full scale – the efficacy of SpaceX’s current manufacturing processes. Back when SpaceX built and tested the first two tank prototypes in January 2020, the company was in the midst of making big changes throughout its coastal Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory – a major leap forward compared to the methods used to build Starship Mk1. While the first tank made it to 7.1 bar (~103 psi) before failing, a second tank survived all the way up to 8.5 bar (~125 psi), as did a third separate test tank built about a month later. According to CEO Elon Musk, 8.5 bar is more than satisfactory for Starship pressure vessels to safely launch humans into orbit, offering a safety margin of more than 40%.
Most recently, Starship SN4 became the first full-scale prototype to replicate the results SpaceX achieved with its shorter test tanks, effortlessly reaching 7.5 bar (~110 psi) during a cryogenic pressure test completed just last month. Despite those myriad successes, however, SpaceX rarely stops moving forward and Musk has already hinted at improvements the company may be hoping to prove out with a fourth Starship test tank.
The most obvious reason to build a new test tank after the success of full-scale Starship prototype SN4 is a substantial change in the steel alloy SpaceX is building rockets out of in South Texas. CEO Elon Musk has teased such a shift for almost a full year and it appears to have happened right on time – if not ahead of schedule. SpaceX currently uses 301 stainless steel for Starship production, while the new material – discussed earlier by Musk and confirmed by inscriptions on the exterior of what would later become the fourth test tank – is a slightly different 304 steel “with higher ductility” (malleability).
It’s unclear if this is the custom-built “30X” alloy SpaceX was planning on creating, given that “304L” steel is an already-available commodity material that is slightly more durable and corrosion-resistant but less ductile and ~10% more expensive than 301. Regardless, changing to a new alloy would almost certainly benefit from real-world testing to confirm that behaves in the ways SpaceX expects it to, while also verifying that existing fabrication methods (particularly welding) still suffice.
The only other notable visual differences between Starship Test Tank #4 and its predecessors are small changes in welding. On the new tank’s dome and ring, SpaceX has removed wavy strips of metal known as a weld doublers, used to strengthen vertical welds on all previous ships and test tanks. While only realizing miniscule weight savings, the change is a visual confirmation that SpaceX is growing more confident in its weld quality, perhaps also signifying the introduction of a new kind of welding.
Last but not least, the circumferential weld joining Test Tank #4’s dome and ring (a dark horizontal line) appears to be centered on the ring, whereas the domes of previous ships and tanks have typically been attached to the upper or lower 20-30% of their respective rings. The purpose of this change is unknown.
Regardless, Test Tank #4 is currently in the midst of an hours-long cryogenic proof test and appears to be almost fully loaded with several hundred tons of liquid nitrogen. Check out the frosty tank live at the link below as we wait to see if the Starship hardware survives.
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
