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.
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
