News
SpaceX’s next Starship hop a step closer after ‘cryo proof’ test
SpaceX appears to have successfully completed one of three major tests standing between a new Starship prototype and the rocket’s next hop.
Known as a cryogenic proof test (“cryo proof”), signs currently point towards a success on Starship SN6’s first try – albeit an hour or two past the end of the planned test window. The proof was planned between 8 am and 5 pm CDT (UTC-5) on August 16th with identical backup windows on Monday and Tuesday in the event of an abort or delay. Thankfully, in a breath of fresh air after many Starship SN5 test delays, SpaceX had no such need.
With the help of local sheriffs, SpaceX closed the highway around 10:15 am and pressurized Starship SN6 with ambient-temperature gas (likely nitrogen) around half an hour later. As usual, the company took its time while the Starship prototype effectively came to life for the first time. Around 2.5 hours later, the Starship began visibly venting for the first time as it operated dozens of valves to maintain safe tank pressures.
To perform a cryogenic pressure test, SpaceX effectively performs a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) – a test that simulates a full launch flow short of liftoff – with no engine installed. To prevent leaks or hull breaches from turning potentially catastrophic during what is often the first major test of a prototype, SpaceX loads Starship with liquid nitrogen (LN2) instead of liquid methane and oxygen propellant. During that process, Starship’s thin steel skin will quickly drop to arctic temperatures, becoming cold enough that it will literally freeze the water vapor out of any ambient air it comes in contact with.
Around 1 pm local, the first sign of that frost sheath appeared but remained a sliver before disappearing around 2 pm. Starship SN6 then hung around for an hour before testing activities appeared to restart. Close to 5:40 pm, almost an hour after SpaceX’s August 16th window was meant to close, frost reappeared on Starship SN6’s hull and rapidly crept up the side of the massive rocket.
Starship SN5’s own cryo proof test – completed on June 30th – debuted apparent upgrades to SpaceX’s South Texas launch facilities, loading the rocket with hundreds of thousands of gallons of LN2 in 15-20 minutes. The ability to load huge quantities of cryogenic propellant very quickly will be critical for SpaceX, as Starship’s efficiency will decrease substantially as its propellant warms. Along those lines, Starship SN6 became the second prototype to be rapidly loaded with liquid nitrogen, going from nearly empty to nearly full in ~15 minutes.
SN6 detanked over the next hour or so and SpaceX opened the road and had a team back on the pad to inspect the rocket by 7:40 pm. At some point during the test, SpaceX likely actuated hydraulic arms attached to Starship’s engine section to simulate the stresses of Raptor thrust under cryogenic loads. Either way, SpaceX was apparently satisfied with the results of Starship SN6’s first cryo proof and proceeded to cancel two backup windows scheduled on August 17th and 18th – a consistent sign that things either went very right or very wrong.
In the case of SN6, nothing was distinctly amiss or different during its cryo proof, pointing towards a successful test. If that’s the case, SpaceX will begin removing the hydraulic Raptor simulator to install an actual Raptor engine and will scheduled road closures for an imminent static fire test. Prior to that actual Raptor ignition test, SpaceX may choose to perform a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) on its own or partially test Raptor by igniting its preburners to momentarily spin up its turbopumps. The company could also integrate both of those precursor tests into the same window as the static fire itself.
If those tests go according to plan, Starship SN6 could be ready for SpaceX’s second full-scale hop ever just a week (or less) later. CEO Elon Musk says that the company’s current goal is to perform multiple Starship tests until the process is fast, smooth, and consistent.
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
