News
SpaceX Starship outfitted with Tesla battery packs and motors
Following in the footsteps of the late Mk1 vehicle, SpaceX’s latest Starship prototype has been outfitted with several Tesla battery packs and motors over the last few weeks.
CEO Elon Musk has confirmed in the past that SpaceX intends to try to use Tesla batteries to power Starship rockets and Tesla motors to drive the ships’ large aerodynamic control surfaces. By all appearances, a Tesla Model S motor’s appearance on the exterior of a Starship prototype recently moved to the launch pad is a first for SpaceX. However, in 2019, SpaceX at one point planned to use and even installed battery packs on Starship Mk1 components before the ship was prematurely destroyed during testing. The nosecone those battery packs were installed in still sits in the middle of SpaceX’s growing Boca Chica rocket factory.
For Starship SN3, the purpose of its ~200 kWh of battery power is rather self-explanatory. The purpose of the Tesla Model S motor recently installed on its side is much less clear.
SpaceX is in the midst of preparing Starship SN3 for its first tests after assembling the rocket from next to nothing in less than a month. SpaceX transported the building-sized prototype a mile down the road to its Boca Chica launch site on March 29th, where dozens of workers have been poring over it day and night ever since. SpaceX originally wanted to attempt the ship’s first two tests yesterday, April 1st, but the scheduled times have come and gone while work continues. Several backup windows are ready on April 2nd, beginning shortly before this article went live (1am CDT, 06:00 UTC).
Regardless, with any rocket prototype, test schedules can be extremely fluid and are always liable to change. While SpaceX relies heavily on agile development strategies, beginning with a minimum viable product and iterating to something approaching feature-complete, there is some value in not turning the “move fast and break stuff” dial to 100%. In the case of Starship, the equivalent of tens to hundreds of thousands of work hours and several million dollars of hardware go into each prototype – incredibly cheap on the scale of aerospace development norms but still a significant chunk of change and effort. A few days or weeks of delays are an annoyance that can be suffered if it better guarantees a successful test, versus the alternative of potentially rushing and cutting corners.
SpaceX is now up to roughly five days of delays while preparing Starship SN3 for testing. Originally scheduled as early as April 1st, SpaceX has moved a planned Raptor engine static fire test to no earlier than (NET) April 6th, to be followed no fewer than several days later by a 150m (500 ft) hop test. Of course, before it can safely attempt its first static fire (or hop), SpaceX needs to verify that Starship SN3 – finished just days ago – is up to the task.
Enter Tesla hardware. During ground testing, Starship will likely be continuously connected to ground power sources. It’s also possible that SpaceX has chosen to use its Tesla battery packs as the main power source to insulate it from local outages. Either way, if or when Starship SN3 makes it to flight tests, the battery packs would power the ship’s onboard avionics, landing legs, and any other necessary equipment. That latter category may be where Starship’s apparent Model S motor comes in.
While it could simply be an early implementation test of the Tesla motors SpaceX wants to use to actuate Starship flaps and fins, there are no signs that SN3 will be outfitted with updated flaps and aerodynamic control surfaces more generally. For low-velocity testing, they’re simply unnecessary. Instead, it’s more likely that this Tesla motor is somehow involved in Starship’s autogenous pressurization system, a method of pressurizing tanks with the liquids they contain. Autogenous pressurization relies on a small portion of propellant (liquid oxygen and methane for Starship) being siphoned off and heated until it turns to gas. That oxygen or methane gas is then fed back into the tank it came from, keeping it at the pressure needed to feed Starship’s Raptor engines.
Autogenous pressurization is significantly more complex than the far more common use of helium or nitrogen pressurization systems. An electric pump could potentially be useful at several points throughout the process. Pump mystery aside, tune in to LabPadre’s 24/7 livestream below to follow along as SpaceX prepares to put Starship SN3 to the test for the first time.
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.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
