News
SpaceX Starship test tank set for destructive finale after ‘cryo proof’
SpaceX’s fourth Starship test tank is set for a destructive finale after completing a “cryo proof” pressure test on Thursday.
SpaceX’s newest Starship test tank – SN7.1 – is the second in a series of two planned prototypes, both designed to test the viability of using a new steel alloy to build future Starships and Super Heavy boosters. CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX is technically customizing its own steel alloy for Starship production but Musk’s comments and the results from SN7 testing in June 2020 point towards an offshoot of 304L with minor metallurgical tweaks.
Prior to SN7’s test campaign, Musk revealed that the main goal of the new alloy was to reduce the brittleness of Starship tanks and any adjacent steel components under cryogenic conditions (i.e. extreme cold). Ultimately, SN7 appeared to confirm that the new alloy’s behavior was far more forgiving under cryogenic loads, reaching what were believed to be record pressures before the tank finally burst on June 24th.
Following in SN7’s footsteps, SN7.1 is much closer to an actual Starship prototype.
“SN7.1 is significantly more complex than its sibling and will test a ~304L Raptor mount (thrust puck) and skirt section. The forces and general conditions those new parts will be subjected to are substantially different than most of what SN7 was subjected to, meaning that there is a chance that 304L steel is actually worse in some scenarios.
With any luck, though, SN7.1’s test campaign – scheduled to begin as early as 9pm CDT (UTC-5), September 10th – will be a flawless success, proving that SpaceX’s new steel alloy is superior to 301 for all Starship-related applications. If that’s the case, Starship SN8 – the first full new-alloy prototype – will likely be fully outfitted with a nosecone and header tanks before beginning acceptance testing later this month.”
Teslarati.com — September 10th, 2020
For SN7.1, increased ductility could theoretically be a mixed bag. Assuming SpaceX has also built the thrust puck out of 304L-adjacent steel, it may end up being too squishy under the extreme forces it will be subjected to. At full throttle, the thrust of three Raptor engines will compress the thrust puck – a cone with dimensions roughly the same as a large circular table – with the equivalent force of a ~600 metric ton (1.3 million lb) weight.
On September 10th, SpaceX put SN7.1 through its paces, performing a cryogenic proof test with liquid nitrogen (LN2) while the tank was still installed on the simple steel frame used to support it during production and transport. That simple decision offers a brief glimpse at the extensive planning that allows SpaceX to optimize for speed and efficiency while still conducting successful tests. While SpaceX could have technically installed SN7.1 directly onto a brand new launch mount custom-built for the exact kind of testing expected, the company instead left the tank on its build stand – much cheaper and far easier to replace than the former.
Technically, moving directly to the launch mount would have slightly simplified the test process, but a tank rupture during a routine cryogenic proof test could have extensively damaged or destroyed the mount, requiring weeks of work to build a full replacement. After SN7.1 successfully completed a cryogenic pressure test on September 10th, SpaceX simply lifted it off its work stand and installed it on a custom-built launch mount.
As early as 9pm CDT (UTC-5) on September 14th, SpaceX will once again load SN7.1 with liquid nitrogen. This time around, the tank – after reaching flight pressures of 7.5 to 8+ bar (110-120+ psi) – will be subjected to the simulated thrust of three Raptor engines by a series of hydraulic rams. Based on a public schedule of road closures, at least two tests are planned. The first will likely put SN7.1 through a range of Raptor thrust scenarios and profiles under the same tank pressures needed for orbital Starship flights. If that test is successful, SpaceX may move SN7.1 back to its work stand before intentionally pressurizing the tank until it bursts sometime around September 17th.
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
