News
SpaceX destacks “420” Starship, Super Heavy pair for the third time
Update: Shortly before SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed that Super Heavy booster B4 and Starship S20 are no longer assigned to the rocket’s orbital launch debut, the company ‘destacked’ the pair for the third time.
Ship 20 was removed from Booster 4 on March 19th, two days before Musk’s tweets. That’s not unusual: it was actually Ship 20’s third removal from Super Heavy. However, almost as soon as the Starship was rolled out of the way, SpaceX began making visible preparations to also remove Super Heavy B4 from Starbase’s orbital launch mount. As of March 24th, the booster has been attached to a large crane for more than a day and a newly upgraded transport stand has been rolled into place beside the launch mount. It’s somewhat odd that the booster hasn’t already been removed but that step could happen at almost any moment, now – albeit likely in daylight.
Once both Ship 20 and Booster 4 have been removed, it’s hard to imagine that they will ever return to the orbital launch mount. In fact, at minimum, Super Heavy B4 will probably be retired almost immediately. Super Heavy B7 – a superior, refined, and upgraded prototype by almost every measure – is already almost fully assembled and could likely begin basic testing within a week or two.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Super Heavy Booster B4 and Starship S20 are no longer scheduled to support the first orbital-class test flight of the world’s largest rocket.
Rumors, signs, and reports of the significant change have been flowing among unofficial spaceflight communities for months. Booster 4 and Ship 20 were first confirmed by Elon Musk to be the pair assigned to Starship’s orbital test flight (OTF) in the summer of 2021. When the pair first rolled out to the launch pad in early August, Musk seemed confident that they could be ready for an orbital launch attempt within a month or two. The same was true in November 2021, when Musk stated that the same Starship and Super Heavy pair could be ready for their first launch as early as January or February 2022.
Musk’s latest update on Starship’s orbital test flight continues that schedule optimism but also introduces several major changes – changes that could easily take several months to fully work through.
Crucially, Musk revealed that the first Starship to attempt an orbital-class launch will now feature upgraded Raptor V2 engines – engines that require an entirely new thrust structure design. That already all but guaranteed that B4 and S20 had been overtaken but Musk also explicitly confirmed that they would be replaced with a new pair in a later tweet.
That new pair – widely assumed to be Super Heavy B7 and Starship S24 – feature a wide range of design changes, including substantially modified header tanks, an entirely new nosecone design, new layouts for secondary systems (pressurization, avionics, heat exchangers, etc.), and more. Most importantly, their thrust structures – giant ‘pucks’ machined out of steel – have been tweaked to support new Raptor V2 engines instead of the Raptor V1 and V1.5 engines that have been installed and tested on all Starship and Super Heavy prototypes to date.
Musk believes that SpaceX will be able to build (and presumably qualify) all 39 of the Raptors Ship 24 and Booster 7 will need before the end of April and fully install them – as well as all the heat shield components that must be fitted around them – by the end of May 2022. It’s unclear if the SpaceX CEO is accounting for the extensive proof testing Ship 24 and Booster 7 will likely need to complete before being qualified for flight, including cryogenic proof tests, wet dress rehearsals, and at least a few static fire tests.
In fact, SpaceX has only performed a single three-engine static fire test with a fully outdated Super Heavy prototype. Before the company is confident in its booster design, it’s practically a certainty that one or more prototypes will be put through a lengthy test campaign that gradually evolves from igniting a few engines to igniting all 29 or 33 Raptors. That may actually be one of the reasons SpaceX appears to be retiring Booster 4 without a single static fire or flight test – performing all the requisite work may have ultimately been perceived as a dead-end when every future Starship and Super Heavy prototype will feature a heavily redesigned engine.
This is to say that much like Musk’s last few Starship OTF schedule estimates, May 2022 also appears to be extremely optimistic. Booster 7 could potentially be ready for cryogenic proof testing any day now but Ship 24 is still in five large pieces and probably at least a month from any form of test readiness. Still, there are some reasons for optimism. If Booster 7 actually does start basic proof testing this month or early next without waiting for its Raptor engines or for heat shield installation, SpaceX could theoretically complete cryoproofing, begin installing one or a few new Raptors at a time, and iteratively progress from static firing a few to all 33 engines as the engines are arriving at Starbase.
At a minimum, even if that razor-sharp test schedule isn’t possible, Booster 7 would at least have a month or so of extra testing over Ship 24, minimizing the disproportionate amount of testing each prototype will likely need to be qualified for flight. Unlike Booster 4, Ship 20 has completed several static fires and cryoproofs without any apparent issue.
For now, SpaceX continues to prepare Ship 24 sections for stacking and appears to be buttoning up Booster 7, which could easily be ready to roll out for basic testing within a few weeks – and maybe sooner.
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
