News
SpaceX fires up Starship rocket twice in 30 hours ahead of next big tests
SpaceX has successfully fired up a full-scale Starship rocket for the second time in barely 30 hours and removed the ship’s Raptor engine to perform an additional suite of “cryo testing”.
Around 7pm CDT on May 6th, SpaceX technicians began loading the fourth full-scale Starship with liquid oxygen and methane, filling up a large portion of its massive propellant tanks. Just the latest in a line of several tests involving wet dress rehearsals (WDR) completed in the days prior, this test would soon become exceptional. About an hour and a half after work began, Starship SN4’s lone Raptor engine ignited and burned for ~3 seconds, marking the first time in history a next-generation SpaceX rocket truly came alive with one of the engines designed to take it all the way to orbit.
In line with tests performed with Starhopper – a low-fidelity, subscale tested that flew twice with Raptor – last year, it would have been business as usual if SpaceX had called it a day and moved on to something else with Starship SN4. Instead, Starship performed another WDR and fired up its Raptor engine for a second time in just 30 hours after SpaceX teams inspected the rocket and cleared it for another round. It’s unknown why two back-to-back static fires were performed but, to be clear, every step Starship SN4 takes forward is a step into uncharted territory. Already, the ship’s next steps could come as soon as Friday, May 8th.
According to CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX’s second Starship SN4 static fire test was completed successfully and actually marked the operational debut of a critical aspect of the next-generation launch vehicle and spacecraft. Known as header tanks, Starship needs two smaller secondary propellant tanks to complement its main tanks, a need driven mainly by the challenges of landing such a large and mobile spacecraft. Smaller header tanks will also make it dramatically easier for SpaceX to insulate cryogenic propellant and ensure it remains liquid over long-duration cruises in space, but safe and reliable landings are a more pressing concern for these early prototypes.
During landing operations, the main benefits smaller header tanks offer are relative ease of pressurization (needed to safely feed Raptor engines) and a much lower risk of issues from sloshing, which can introduce bubbles and voids that can obliterate rocket engines if ingested. Impressively, per Musk, Starship SN4 completed its second static fire test using its internal liquid methane header tank – a sort of bubble attached to the bottom of the main methane tank dome.
Starship’s liquid oxygen header tank is situated at the tip of the conical nose section, a part that all full-scale ships have been tested without thus far. However, the use of the fuel header tank on May 7th means that Starship SN4 already has a functional, plumbed header tank installed, verifying the partial functionality of a critical part of the next-generation launch vehicle. A second static fire will have also provided SpaceX a wealth of extra data about Raptor’s performance while installed on Starship, invaluable at such an early stage of integrated testing.
Two Starship static fires now under its belt, SpaceX removed SN4’s Raptor engine around 12 hours after its second test and returned it to storage at the company’s nearby factory facilities. According to public notices provided by Cameron County, Texas officials, SpaceX’s next Starship SN4 activity is expected to occur on May 8th with backup windows on the 9th and 10th and will involve “cryo testing”.
The most obvious conclusion is that SpaceX – having completed enough static fire testing to verify Starship SN4’s performance – now wants to really put the rocket through its paces with another cryogenic test. Completed on April 26th, the ship’s first cryogenic ‘proof’ test maxed out at around 4.9 bar (70 psi), enough for low-stress hop tests but well short of the sustained pressure needed for orbital spaceflight. While testing singular propellant tanks in the first few months of 2020, Musk revealed that SpaceX was targeting a minimum of 6 bar (~90 psi) for orbital Starship flights – ~8 bar (115 psi) with a 25% safety factor.
The company actually achieved 8.4 bar with one of its Starship test tanks, the same processes of which were used to build Starship SN4, but a full-scale ship has yet to demonstrate those pressures. Now, SpaceX already has a fifth full-scale prototype (Starship SN5) likely just a week or so away from pad readiness, meaning that Starship SN4’s potential destruction during pressure testing wouldn’t have a big impact on plans for a series of imminent flight tests. If SN4 survives pressure testing, it would likely have its Raptor engine reinstalled and move on to a 150m (500 ft) hop test.
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
