News
SpaceX tests Starship and Frankenstein ‘test tank’ simultaneously
After another few weeks of downtime, SpaceX has simultaneously tested the first orbital-class Starship prototype and a Frankenstein-esque ‘test tank’ at its South Texas facilities. While nothing that occurred was all that visually spectacular, the afternoon of testing was still noteworthy for a couple of reasons.
First up, following a successful six-engine Raptor static fire – the first in Starbase history – on November 12th, all signs pointed to Starship S20 attempting another static fire (its fourth) on December 1st. In the almost three weeks of inactivity between those planned tests, SpaceX likely performed extensive inspections of the pathfinder prototype and its Raptor engines. Technicians also repaired the minor heat shield damage and tile loss that testing incurred and patched a few other ‘holes’, effectively leaving Ship 20 with the first fully finished heat shield by the end of November.
Earlier this week, one of the few remaining Boca Chica Village residents received a safety notice from SpaceX indicating that a static fire test was scheduled on Wednesday, December 1st – followed soon after by a notice to mariners (NOTAM) warning boaters to keep to a safe distance. Two hours into the 10am to 6pm CST test window, Starship S20 was already venting and starting to get frosty, confirming that propellant loading had begun. A little over an hour later, it was clear that SpaceX had aborted the first static fire attempt of the day. For the next three hours, Ship 20 exhibited some unusual behavior including new vents, an apparent header tank pressurization or fill test, and still more odd venting in new places.
In the middle of Starship’s weird nose-related testing, SpaceX began simultaneously loading a new ‘test tank’ known as B2.1 with liquid nitrogen (LN2) – marking the first truly simultaneous test of multiple Starship test articles. As Ship 20 seemingly detanked for the second time that day, the B2.1 tank was fully loaded with LN2 and apparently pressure-tested not long after. A few hours later, the test tank was also detanked and the road to the pad was reopened, marking the end of the day’s testing.
Normally, nothing is particularly unusual or noteworthy about test tank testing. Since January 2020, SpaceX has routinely built and tested tanks that are effectively just shorter versions of actual tanks and hardware, using them to qualify changes to Starship’s design, materials, operations, and more before applying those changes to full-size prototypes. B2.1 is the tenth dedicated test tank to reach the launch pad in a little under two years.
Normally, the ‘B2.1’ name SpaceX has given the tank would imply that it’s a newer booster test tank (using Bx instead of BNx) following in the footsteps of BN2.1, which passed cryogenic and load testing this summer. Instead, though, B2.1 is a bit of a nightmarish amalgamation of seemingly random Starship and Super Heavy parts. Its forward dome is an old, unused booster section complete with the hexagonal structure grid fins would have been brace against. Its aft section is a booster thrust structure. Up to that point, it’s effectively just a copy of BN2.1.
However, SpaceX inexplicably installed a Starship thrust dome inside B2.1’s booster thrust structure, creating a test tank with no obvious relevance to any conceivable Starship or Super Heavy design or prototype. Further, SpaceX rolled B2.1 to the launch site for testing only after installing it on an unused device that’s believed to be the aft half of a dedicated booster structural test stand. In theory, a sort of ‘cap’ would be fitted on top of a booster or test tank installed in the stand’s base and strong cables would connect the two, allowing SpaceX to subject prototypes to compressive stress – like, perhaps, the forces a booster might experience while carrying a fully-fueled 1300-ton Starship to space. The upper half of that test structure has yet to be moved to the launch site.
Altogether, the weird half-complete test stand and bizarre fusion of ship and booster parts make B2.1’s purpose and initial testing a complete mystery. It’s unclear what value it provides that makes it more of a priority than, say, finally starting to test the first flightworthy Super Heavy booster (B4). Ultimately, the most interesting thing about B2.1’s test debut is the fact that it appears to mark the first use of Starbase’s brand new orbital tank farm, which is approaching completion.
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
