News
SpaceX outfits Starship, Super Heavy with dozens of Raptor engines
New photos shared by SpaceX show that the company has nearly finished installing a total of 39 upgraded Raptor engines on a new Starship and its Super Heavy booster.
Those prototypes – known as Ship 24 and Booster 7 – could be tasked with supporting Starship’s first orbital launch attempt sometime later this year if both make it through upcoming test campaigns without major issues. Whether that’s a probable outcome is still uncertain but recent progress suggests that it won’t take long for the prospects of both prototypes to shift into clearer focus.
After several rounds of proof testing and two trips to and from SpaceX’s Starbase, Texas orbital launch site (OLS) in March, April, and May, Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7) made its third trip to the pad on June 23rd.
“SpaceX used the six weeks Booster 7 spent back in a factory assembly bay to finish installing aerocovers, surfaces known as chines or strakes, car-sized grid fins, Starlink internet dishes, and – most importantly – 33 upgraded Raptor V2 engines. Combined, Booster 7 could produce up to 7600 metric tons (~16.8M lbf) of thrust at or before liftoff. Crucially, SpaceX also finished installing most of Booster 7’s Raptor heat shield in the same period, completing in six weeks work that took Booster 4 closer to half a year. With its heat shield and all 33 Raptors mostly in place, Booster 7 should be ready to kick off static fire testing almost as soon as it’s installed on Starbase’s orbital launch mount.”
Teslarati.com – June 24th, 2022
Building, qualifying, shipping, and installing 33 new Raptor 2 engines on Super Heavy B7 was already an impressive achievement and produced the most (potentially) powerful rocket booster ever assembled. On July 2nd, a pair of photos published by SpaceX showed off Booster 7’s nearly-finished engine section and simultaneously revealed that the company has finished installing all six of Starship S24’s Raptor engines – and even part of the ship’s aft thermal protection.
Differences are already visible between Ship 24 and Ship 20, the only other Starship prototype to have six Raptors installed. The most notable change is the addition of a metal framework that covers the entire breadth of the ship’s aft – most likely destined to support flat sections of insulation and thermal protection that will partially seal off sensitive engine, plumbing, pressure vessels, and avionics components located inside Starship’s aft. That extra shielding should help limit the extreme conditions that hardware will be subjected to during ground testing and, perhaps, in flight.
Super Heavy Booster 7 has already completed a significant amount of testing, including four cryogenic proofs (cryoproofs) and one Raptor thrust simulation test. Since its third return to the pad, SpaceX has several more ambiguous tests, none of which appeared to involve cryogenic propellant loading. It’s possible that those tests focused more on Booster 7’s pressurization system, perhaps filling its tanks with the hot oxygen and methane gases it will eventually use to pressurize its tanks. It’s likely that SpaceX wants to put Booster 7 through at least one successful wet dress rehearsal – using real liquid methane and oxygen propellant – before attempting to static fire any of its 33 Raptors. Booster 7’s aft thermal protection system also isn’t entirely complete, so technicians will need to finish installing several more panels before any static fire testing.
Alongside B7, Starship S24 has completed a good amount of cryoproof and Raptor thrust simulation testing, which it survived without any irreperable issues. The ship was then returned to an assembly bay on June 9th, where where workers have been installing heat shield tiles, finalizing the ship’s engine section, and completing dozens of other less visible closeout tasks. SpaceX also recently finished modifying one of its two suborbital test and launch mounts for Starship static fire testing, leaving the other mount semi-permanently modified for cryoproof and thrust simulation testing of future prototypes.
SpaceX has requested permission for road closures – each a potential 12-hour test window – on July 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th, and 12th.
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
