News
SpaceX working on several Starship, Super Heavy upgrades and design changes
Not long after Elon Musk confirmed plans to add three more Raptor engines to Starship and stretch the upper stage’s propellant tanks, the SpaceX CEO has confirmed one of several smaller design changes planned in the interim.
On January 3rd, Musk confirmed that SpaceX is entirely relocating one of two secondary ‘header’ tanks that Starships use to store landing propellant. A graphic sketched on the side of future Starship rings further revealed plans to tweak most of the subsections that SpaceX stacks to form a Starship, complementing an upgraded nosecone design. Finally, another design change was spotted on hardware that will eventually become part of the first full-thrust Super Heavy booster.
According to Musk, starting with Starship 24 (S24), which is likely the next ship SpaceX will complete, the methane (fuel) header tank will be relocated from Starship’s common dome to its nosecone. From the start, Starship’s oxygen header tank has been located in the very tip of the nose – placed in such an inconvenient location for the sole purpose of shifting Starship’s center of gravity forward. Now, the methane header tank will join it in the nose, with the obvious explanation being a need to shift that center of gravity even further forward. It’s possible that this change was planned before SpaceX realized the performance benefits of a stretched, nine-engine Starship, but it could also be a preemptive modification meant to counteract the added weight of three more Raptor engines and longer tanks.
Musk’s confirmation of the methane header tank’s relocation came just a few days after a drawing on the side of a Starship section further confirmed several more minor design changes. Starbase ‘hieroglyphics’ are not uncommon, as SpaceX engineers and technicians have often used hardware itself as a sort of whiteboard to sketch out plans and literally annotate ongoing work. This particular drawing was exceptionally detailed and useful, effectively showing exactly how Starship’s design will change beginning with Ship 24. The changes are simple enough: in essence, SpaceX will be adding an extra ring to several Starship ‘sections.’ For current ships, six distinct sections are stacked to form the Starship’s cylindrical tankage and hull.
It takes another five stacked sections to complete the current nosecone design. Counting the nose as one, it takes about seven stack operations to fully assemble the basic structure of a Starship. With the design changes sketched out on a Starship S24 ring and an upgraded nosecone that will debut on the same ship, fully assembling a nosecone will now take two or three stacks (down from five) and fully assembling a Starship will take six stacks (down from seven). While obviously not a major redesign, the changes will significantly simplify (and thus potentially speed up) Starship assembly, which will have additional positive follow-on impacts on plumbing, wiring, and heat shield installation.
There’s good reason to believe that some of the changes – especially expanding Starship’s nose barrel from four to five rings tall – will end up being applied to Super Heavy, potentially reducing the number of booster ‘sections’ needed from nine to seven or eight. However, there are already signs of some weirder changes being made to Super Heavy’s design. On December 21st, a Super Heavy thrust dome – likely Booster 7’s – was sleeved with several steel rings as part of a now-routine process, partially completing the first 33-engine thrust section. However, instead of the usual aft barrel section comprised of three six-foot-tall (~1.82m) steel rings, this ‘sleeve’ was made up of four ~1.4m-tall rings – the first time in Starbase history that shorter rings have appeared on any hardware.
Unlike all the other changes described above, it’s entirely unclear what benefit SpaceX is getting from keeping a given ship or booster section the same height while adding more smaller rings to it – a process that will inherently increase the complexity and amount of work required to complete that section. Regardless, it’s clear that SpaceX is in the midst of a significant period of design revision that could see Ship 24 and Booster 7 debut with a wide range of upgrades and design changes in just a few months.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
