News
SpaceX’s Starship prototype is looking increasingly rocket-like as hop test pad expands
As SpaceX’s South Texas operations continue full steam ahead in pursuit of the first integrated hop tests of a full-scale Starship prototype, the company’s Starhopper and its complementary launch/hop pad are dramatically and visibly evolving on a daily basis.
This week’s progress has been signified by the installation of familiar rocket hardware on the Ship and a burst of construction – centered around pipelaying, plumbing, foundation work, and berm-building – at its pad. Just a few hundred miles north of Boca Chica, SpaceX’s team of propulsion engineers and technicians reached their own dramatic milestone, conducting the first static fire of a finalized version of the Raptor engine set to power Starship and Super Heavy (formerly BFR).
2-4-2019#SpaceX #TheFuture pic.twitter.com/0YBxk5QXD3
— Austin Barnard🚀 (@austinbarnard45) February 5, 2019
A pad fit for a Starhopper
In the last ~10 days alone (Jan 24-Feb 4), SpaceX pad construction workers and contractors transformed the former dirt mound from a generally flat, planed surface with a spattering of shipping containers and building materials into a hive of welding rigs, propellant and water tanks, major plumbing progress, shaped earth, and the beginnings of new concrete foundations. Thanks to local student Austin Barnard’s reliable drone photography, that pad-specific progress can be more properly visualized.
Taken on January 24th and February 4th respectively, the devil is definitely in the details when it comes to SpaceX’s prospective Starhopper pad development. Most notable is the progress made with the rapidly developing propellant plant and ground systems infrastructure in the left half of the images, marked by hundreds of feet of freshly-installed piping meant to support the process of fueling Starhopper with liquid methane and oxygen. For a rocket as powerful as Starhopper (even with just three Raptor engines), cooling both the propellant and the concrete launch and landing pad is no less important, visible in the shape of three large water tanks (lefthand foreground) and a smaller radiator stack (just to the right of two taller, skinnier white tanks.
Aside from the rapid rise of the first BFR propellant farm and its supporting equipment, SpaceX has progressed into the installation of a trio of concrete foundations just to the right of the dirt berm and propellant tank area. Standing as close as it is to said propellant tanks, it seems unlikely that the new foundation-laying is related to the pad (or a stand) meant to support early Starhopper hop tests, although SpaceX’s Falcon 9-era Grasshopper and F9R hop test vehicles operated about the same distance from its propellant infrastructure. SpaceX’s South Texas site also features a sort of satellite pad at its east end (the right side in attached photos) that could have a future as an integration hangar or a secondary landing zone to allow for Starhopper to perform divert tests.
-
- Rockets are perhaps even more capital intensive. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster is at least three times more powerful still than BFS at liftoff. (SpaceX)
-
- BFR (2018) breaks through a cloud layer shortly after launch. (SpaceX)
-
- (SpaceX)
-
- BFR’s booster, now known as Super Heavy. (SpaceX)
Depending on whether SpaceX actually intends to develop the land shown above into an actual full-scale launch facility for BFR (Super Heavy and Starship), it could also remain generally unchanged until Starhopper’s hop test program has been run to completion, at which point everything seen above would likely be rebuilt from scratch to accommodate for any drastic changes in function. SpaceX’s Boca Chica might simply be too small to support a pad capable of launching Super Heavy (nearly twice as powerful as Saturn V at full thrust), measuring in at considerably less than ~10 acres of usable area compared to LC-40’s ~20 acres and Pad 39A’s ~50+ acres. CEO Elon Musk has also hinted at using a giant floating platform for early orbital BFR launches, although that might prove even harder (and more costly) than building a traditional land-based pad.
Becoming a rocket
Meanwhile, the aft engine/fin/tank section of SpaceX’s Starship prototype (unofficially nicknamed Starhopper) has experienced a stream of hardware additions and improvements, modifying its relatively awkward and unfinished steel base with what appear to be Falcon 9-sized quick-disconnect umbilical panels, a functional propellant tank header, and mounting hardware for carbon-overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs). By using hardware that is proven and easy to manufacture, SpaceX can save a huge amount of time that would otherwise need to be spent engineering subassemblies that (at risk of undervaluing the challenge) are generally known-quantities – more a matter of time and effort than an actual technical hurdle.
-
- B1048’s second umbilical panel (blue for oxygen). (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 displays one of two umbilical panels (red for kerosene) after its first launch. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Starhopper’s partially completed umbilical panel as of Feb. 4th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
-
- A SpaceX technician or contractor is pictured here cutting out sections of Starhopper’s steel hull to route umbilical panel piping. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal, 02/03/19)
-
- Starhopper also had a tank header installed on February 5th, complete with pressure regulation and propellant feeding hardware. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
While they are clearly still in a rough, unfinished form, Starhopper’s umbilical panels are already easy to recognize when compared alongside Falcon 9’s iconic red and blue panel pairs. In essence, whereas Starhopper has been a largely unknown quantity with no familiar aspects since it began to come together late last year, the Starship prototype has recently had hardware installed that is finally revealing subtle SpaceX signatures in its design and assembly.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
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
