News
SpaceX Starship test tank survives first two nights of stress testing
SpaceX’s newest Starship test tank has survived the first two nights of stress testing, pushing the steel tank one step closer to a destructive finale.
Known as Starship SN7.1, the new tank – aside from one critical difference – is similar to Starship SN2 (pictured above), a full-scale prototype SpaceX repurposed into a test tank in March 2020. SN2 served to test improvements made to the design of Starship’s “thrust puck,” a dense steel cone that must transmit the thrust of three Raptor engines through the rest of the rocket. Much like SN2, SN7.1 is a test tank with a focus on the behavior of Starship’s engine section under extreme loads at cryogenic temperatures.
Unlike SN2, however, SN7.1 is built almost entirely out of a new steel alloy – closer to 304L than the 301 stainless used on all previous prototypes.
SpaceX rolled the tank to the launch site and pressurized it with cryogenic liquid nitrogen on September 10th as part of a routine “cryo proof” acceptance test. SN7.1 appeared to complete that proof without issue, exhibiting no leaks or unusual behavior, and likely reached pressures of 7.5-8 bar (~110-120 psi) before detanking.
Over the next three days, SpaceX inspected the test tank, relocated it to a more capable (and expensive) test stand, and connected hydraulic rams (used to mechanically simulate engine thrust) to its thrust puck.
Around midnight on September 15th, SpaceX kicked off the first round of SN7.1 stress testing, repeatedly loading and unloading the tank with liquid nitrogen. While it’s impossible to visually confirm the use of the stand’s hydraulic rams, it’s safe to assume that SpaceX used them to stress SN7.1’s thrust puck while chilled to cryogenic temperatures. The new steel alloy SpaceX is using on SN7.x and prototypes SN8 and beyond is designed to be less brittle at cryogenic temperatures, nominally ensuring that flawed or aged Starship tanks leak before they burst or explode.
Aside from the obvious triple-Raptor thrust simulation, SpaceX likely also simulated thrust from one or two Raptors to verify the new design’s ability to survive asymmetric thrust in engine-out scenarios. Ultimately, SN7.1 made it through the night without obvious issues and there have been no signs of leak-fixing today, suggesting that the tank performed well. SpaceX has a second SN7.1 test period scheduled to begin on September 17th, as well as backups on the 15th, 16th, 20th, and 21st. More likely than not, SN7.1’s next test will end when the tank is intentionally pressurized to failure.
Update: SpaceX has kicked off another night of SN7.1 stress testing, beginning almost as soon as the nine-hour window opened (9pm CDT (UTC-5) on September 15th). As of midnight, the company has already put the test tank through one cycle, rapidly filling and pressurizing it with liquid nitrogen before detanking. It remains to be seen if the company will continue testing this window, which closes at 6am on Wednesday. There is also a chance that SpaceX will intentionally pressurize SN7.1 to failure tonight, although it’s much more likely that the tank will be returned to a cheaper, simpler transport stand rather than risking damage to a new launch mount.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
