News
SpaceX is installing Tesla battery packs on its Starship MK1 rocket prototype
First noticed by NASASpaceflight.com forum member “exilon”, SpaceX appears to have selected off-the-shelf Tesla battery packs as the power storage method of choice for its Starship Mk1 prototype, currently in the midst of a busy period of integration
Potentially taken directly from Tesla Model S/X powertrains otherwise headed for recycling, SpaceX technicians have spent the last 24 or so hours attaching numerous battery packs to part of a Starship subsystem known as header tanks. This is the latest addition to SpaceX and Tesla’s relatively close relationship – the two have begun to work together to solve challenges with materials science, batteries, and more within the last 12-24 months.
While initially surprising, the appearance of battery packs quite literally taken from Tesla Model S/X vehicles or their Gigafactory assembly line actually makes a lot of sense. By using prepackaged, off-the-shelf battery systems with industry-leading power management capabilities, SpaceX is probably saving a huge amount of time, money, and effort. If the battery packs were already nearing the end of their useful automotive lives, the net cost could very well approach zero, aside from what looks like a minimal mounting brace. It’s possible that SpaceX has even pursued modifying and certifying large Tesla-derived battery packs for use on orbital Starship missions.
These battery packs were spotted by an eagle-eyed forum user who was first to recognize the hardware for what it likely was. Per the above photo, SpaceX appears to have joined two self-contained Tesla battery packs into single units that were then installed on a header tank. Knowing that the highest capacity Tesla offers is ~100 kWh, the 2×2 packs could store up to 400 kWh and offer instantaneous power output (ignoring thermal limitations) well into the megawatt (MW) range. It’s unclear if the first header tank also had batteries attached but SpaceX technicians began installing that tank inside Starship’s nose cone on the evening September 22nd. Tank #2 will likely follow in the next 24 hours per Musk’s indication that Starship Mk1 would be stacked to its full height on Wednesday.
For unknown reasons, SpaceX is choosing to mount the ~1000 kg (2200 lb) battery pack pairs directly onto the outside of one of Starship Mk1’s two header tanks. These tanks compliment the rocket prototype’s main propellant tanks and are meant to serve as small reserves of fuel (methane) and oxidizer (oxygen) that can be pressurized independently. During dramatic in-space and in-atmosphere maneuvers, the g-forces exerted on Starship could easily find the vehicle’s propellant pushed away from the ‘bottom’ of its main tanks, creating bubbles or voids that can damage and destroy rocket engines if ingested.
Pressurizing the entirety of the main tanks (a cylinder measuring 9m by ~40m or 30×130 ft) is extremely impractical – hence the need for much smaller header tanks. Falcon 9 boosters are able to sidestep this issue because they are small and light enough (relatively speaking) that cold gas thrusters can efficiently generate the positive Gs needed to safely ignite its engines for recovery and landing maneuvers. Empty, Starship alone will likely weigh no less than 4-6 times as much as a Falcon 9 booster (~25 tons, 55,000 lb).
According to CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX has decided to install those header tanks in the very tip of Starship Mk1’s conical nose to help balance out the vehicle’s center of mass. As a side-effect, SpaceX will have to install feed lines that run the entire length of the spacecraft and protect them with steel aero-covers. It’s unclear if this design choice is necessitated by Starship’s early, prototypical form or if – once outfitted with crew quarters or a functional cargo bay – it’s possible that that added mass will serve as enough of a counterbalance to preclude the need for ballast in the nose.
Musk posted a view inside an adjacent SpaceX fabrication facility in Boca Chica on September 23rd, showing a large row of staged steel sheets that will eventually be formed into aerodynamic shrouds for Starship Mk1’s raceways, fins, and wings.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
