News
SpaceX separates Starship prototype’s nose and tail to install giant propellant tanks
After a handful of days as an impressive monolith stood along the coastal wetlands of Texas, SpaceX technicians have once again separated the nose and tail sections of the first Starship prototype to allow additional integration and assembly work to continue. The craft’s three Raptors were also removed and stored nearby, shown to be barebones facsimiles standing in for flightworthy hardware that could arrive in the next month or two.
Up next, three or four propellant tank domes – currently being assembled and welded together on-site – will likely be installed inside the steel hull of the giant Starship prototype’s aft barrel section. Known as bulkheads, the installation of those tank domes will bring SpaceX one step closer to performing hop tests of the simultaneously bizarre, confusing, and beautiful craft.
Starship Hopper has been taken apart again (for the installation of the bulkhead etc.)
📸NSF's BocaChicaGalhttps://t.co/DlTj9Qiijz
NSF Overview News Article by Thomas Burghardt @TGMetsFan98 for those catching up:https://t.co/rgliFAkBMC pic.twitter.com/DzSJzjSvoI
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) January 15, 2019
At this point in time, it appears that Starhopper is some odd combination of showmanship and actual hardware meant to test certain aspects of the first orbital Starship build, said to be complete as early as June 2019 by CEO Elon Musk. In the last week or so, SpaceX technicians attached and welded over Starhopper’s two sections – an aft barrel with legs and Raptors and a conical nose – and even did a sort of photoshoot, removing an on-site fence for a photo that Musk later shared while stating that the vehicle had “completed assembly”.
Starship test flight rocket just finished assembly at the @SpaceX Texas launch site. This is an actual picture, not a rendering. pic.twitter.com/k1HkueoXaz
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 11, 2019
One could argue that assembly is not exactly complete if the given product has to be pulled in half to install significant new components. Regardless, the external skin, aft barrel section, and rough landing legs do appear to be more or less complete from a very basic structural perspective, although there is clearly much work still to be done if the vehicle’s tank bulkheads haven’t been installed. Aside from completing the liquid oxygen and methane tank structure, SpaceX engineers and technicians will additionally have to complete the vehicle’s aft section, a massive 9m/30ft-diameter thrust structure capable of supporting the thrust of three Raptor engines and the weight of the entire fueled rocket. After that, plumbing, avionics, sensors, attitude thrusters, and more will still need to be completed and integrated.
If Starhopper’s nose section is largely a nonfunctioning aerodynamic shroud and propellant tanks will be primarily located inside the aft section, the fuel and oxidizer capacities of the vehicle’s tanks can be roughly estimated. Assuming a 9m/30ft diameter, the aft barrel stands around 13m/43ft tall. Assuming that the upper tank dome will reach a meter or two above the steel cylinder and that the aft Raptor thrust structure is also roughly 1-2 meters deep, Starhopper would have a total tank volume around 830 m3 or almost 30,000 cubic feet (~225,000 gallons), potentially 1000 metric tons of fuel or more if fully loaded.
SpaceX ships another huge propellant tank to South Texas BFR test sitehttps://t.co/4L7f74gwg3 pic.twitter.com/KnHXOTCfAR
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 24, 2018
- SpaceX has two of these tanks and two others that are smaller but still massive. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal, 10/23/18)
- Starhopper’s Raptor facsimiles were removed on January 15th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
- Meanwhile, giant 9m-diameter tank domes are being assembled and welded together a few hundred feet away from Starhopper. (NSF – bocachicagal)
Perhaps less than coincidentally, SpaceX already has liquid methane and oxygen tanks on-site (one is pictured above) with more than enough capacity to meet Starhopper’s potential propellant needs. However, it’s worth noting that current plans (and permissions) only show Starhopper traveling as high as 5km on flights that will last no more than 6 minutes, and CEO Elon Musk has indicated in no uncertain terms that the prototype will remain distinctly suborbital and is primarily focused on fleshing out Starship’s vertical take-off or landing (VTOL) capabilities before SpaceX proceeds to much more aggressive tests.
While it would be safe to take his schedule with many dozens of grains of salt, Musk noted last week that the first orbit-ready Starship could be finished as early as June 2019, while he expects Starhopper tests to begin as early as February or March. Where exactly that orbital Starship and its Super Heavy booster partner will be built is now much less clear after SpaceX has reportedly canceled a berth lease and thus its plans to build a BFR factory in the Port of Los Angeles. Will SpaceX build a BFR factory in Texas or will it build the orbital Starship en plein air like its Starhopper predecessor? And Super Heavy? Where will all three conduct static fires, hops, or launches from?
Stay tuned as more details and photos continue to bubble up from beneath the surface.
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.
News
Tesla crushes NHTSA’s brand-new ADAS safety tests – first vehicle to ever pass
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.
News
Tesla to fix 219k vehicles in recall with simple software update
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.


