News
SpaceX Starship briefly becomes largest rocket in history – now what’s next?
On August 6th, after a great deal of anticipation, SpaceX stacked a Starship on top of a Super Heavy booster for the first time ever, very briefly assembling the largest rocket in history.
However, barely an hour after the two stages were integrated and (presumably) latched together, SpaceX lifted Starship (S20) off the booster, returned it to its transport stand, and rolled the ship back to the build site later that day. Though an extreme sensitivity to wind conditions has delayed the procedure, Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) also appears to be on track to be removed from the orbital launch mount and sent either back to the factory or to a suborbital launch mount that’s been modified for booster testing.
For those that followed the process closely in the days and weeks prior, the fact that Starship’s first full assembly was just a fit check (and, really, more like 50:50 between fit check and photo op) came as no surprise. In the lead-up, it became clear through several reports that CEO Elon Musk had challenged SpaceX to stack Ship 20 and Booster 4 by August 5th and flown in several hundred employees normally stationed elsewhere to accomplish the feat.
Ignoring weather delays that prevented stacking on August 5th, SpaceX met Musk’s challenge in all but the literal sense, assembling the world’s largest rocket into one integrated stack for the first time ever. Even more significantly, despite the fact that SpaceX could have easily decided to stack two not-for-flight prototypes to sort of achieve the same feat, both stages – Ship 20 and Booster 4 – involved in the August 6th milestone are nominally destined for flight.
Barring surprises, the same exact pair is scheduled to support Starship’s first orbital test flight as early as this year. Before they can be cleared for flight, however, a great deal of work must still be completed – work that in some cases is unprecedented in the history of the Starship program.
Not long after the stacking milestone, Musk himself sketched out a few of the tasks still in front of the rocket. Namely, Musk says that SpaceX must still complete Starship S20’s partially-finished heat shield, install some form of heat shield(s) to protect Super Heavy Booster 4’s 29 naked Raptor engines; finish installing, plumbing, and activating 4-7 massive custom propellant storage tanks; and assemble, install, and activate a giant mechanical umbilical arm on the launch tower to fuel and power Starship.
All are undoubtedly crucial and Starship is unlikely to launch before any of them are more or less complete. However, the booster and ship themselves are arguably far more of a pressure point. Before they can be deemed ready for flight, both the ship and booster must complete unprecedented test campaigns on the ground.
Ship 20 will need to complete cryogenic proof testing to verify that the first Starship with six Raptor engine mounts is structurally sound. SpaceX has already modified one of its two suborbital Starship launch mounts for that purpose. Once cryo proof and hydraulic ram testing is complete, those six rams will likely be removed and six Raptor engines will be installed in their place, potentially setting up Ship 20 to become the first Starship prototype to static fire six engines – and any number of Raptor Vacuum engines.
Super Heavy Booster 4 will be faced with an even more ambitious static fire test campaign as SpaceX likely gradually installs more and more engines. Depending on how focused SpaceX is on speed over thoroughness, that process could involve gradually adding 2-5 engines after every static fire or could result in SpaceX starting with 4-9 engines and then immediately jumping from 9 to a full 29-Raptor static fire.
Only after completing those crucial qualification tests is SpaceX likely to stack Ship 20 and Booster 4 for a second time and enter the first true full-stack Starship launch flow – hopefully culminating in the first orbital launch attempt later this year, but only as soon as the FAA completes an environmental review and approves the rocket’s launch license. Technically, FAA approval could come next month or it could take the agency a year or more – it’s almost impossible to predict without official information. However, given SpaceX’s track record with Starship prototypes and Booster B3, it’s likely that a flightworthy Starship and Super Heavy will be stacked on the pad and ready to launch just a few months from now.
Stay tuned for updates on that potential standoff in the making and Starship’s progress towards its first orbital test flight.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
