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.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
