News
SpaceX begins building upgraded Starship prototype
A Starship part spotted on July 20th confirms that SpaceX is already well into the process of building a significantly upgraded full-scale prototype.
Following in the footsteps of five or six full-scale ships before it, information published by NASASpaceflight.com suggests that Starship SN8 will be a substantial departure from its predecessors. Thanks to data gathered by testing the Starship SN7 test tank to destruction on June 24th, SpaceX has determined that a different alloy – known as 304L – is superior to the 301 stainless steel all Starship prototypes have been built out of up to now.
SN8 is SpaceX’s response to that discovery. As usual, the company has performed smaller tests before deciding to build a full-scale Starship prototype – identical to all previous SNx prototypes beyond the alloy change – out of 304L stainless steel. As a result, Starship SN8 – once complete – may have the most potential of any prototype built thus far, but its fate will also be more uncertain than most of its predecessors.
On June 24th, SpaceX destroyed the SN7 Starship test tank as part of a controlled cryogenic proof test – essentially a pressure test at cryogenic (ultra-cold) temperatures. Departing from routine, CEO Elon Musk never commented on the test, leaving its results shrouded in mystery. According to NASASpaceflight, however, SN7 “achieved a record pressure before it failed.”
Designed to test a different formulation of stainless steel, that success implies that SN7 proved that the 304L alloy will not only be more malleable and forgiving at cryogenic temperatures – but is also more capable overall compared to 301 steel. To beat the record set by the second or third Starship test tank in January or March 2020, SN7 would have had to reach pressures of ~8.6 bar or higher – effectively icing on the cake for the already-demonstrated ~140% safety factor.
A full-scale Starship has yet to survive proof tests at those pressures but Starship SN4 did become the first to complete a full cryo proof, sustaining ~7.5 bar (~110 psi) before it was safely depressurized. Currently on the pad and preparing for an imminent static fire and hop test debut, Starship SN5 is unlikely to put pressure on that record unless that it aces both of the aforementioned trials. Built entirely out of the 304L alloy already proven to be superior to 301, SN8 may well be the golden goose of prototypes.
“The vehicle will feature major upgrades over previous Starship prototypes. SN8 will be built out of 304L stainless steel versus 301 and will receive a fairing, aerosurfaces, and three Raptor engines to allow for a higher-altitude test flight.”
NASASpaceflight.com — July 15th, 2020
The appearance of SN8’s labeled common dome – the dome separating Starship’s liquid oxygen and methane tanks – implies that a variety of other parts spotted over the last few days are also meant for the next full-scale rocket. Mounted on a stand purpose-built for the task, the SN8 common dome will soon be ‘sleeved’ by one or several stacked steel rings, after which it can be welded to the rest of the Starship’s tank. An engine section and thrust structure – likely SN8’s – in the late stages of assembly was spotted three days prior, while an upper tank dome that could be for either SN8 or test tank SN7.1 was captured in the same photos.
In the last photo, taken on July 13th, there’s even signs of what could be Starship SN9 – hinted at by the appearance of two Starship engine sections signified by the pattern of welds on their exteriors. Those welds are incontrovertible signs of the stringers used to strengthen Starship engine sections and they haven’t been used anywhere else on past prototypes.
Based on the sheer number of steel rings and domes currently floating around SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory, SN8 could be a just a week – or even less – away from final stacking operations. If SN5 leaves the pad intact and completes its wet dress rehearsal, static fire, and flight debut without issue, SN8 could be up to bat much sooner than later.
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
