News
SpaceX preparing for third Starship ‘full stack’
SpaceX appears to be preparing Starship 20 and Super Heavy Booster 4 for their third ‘full stack’ demonstration after two seemingly successful tests in August 2021 and February 2022.
The first, completed in early August 2021, was mostly for show and saw SpaceX stack the unfinished prototypes with a giant crane – fighting the coastal winds throughout. After just a few hours stacked, Ship 20 was removed and returned to Starbase, where workers spent several more weeks (mostly) finishing the prototype. Booster 4 followed suit several weeks later and ultimately took another three months of work to reach some level of test readiness.
After Ship 20 and Booster 4 completed a series of tests in the last few months of 2021 and early 2022, the two were re-stacked in mid-February – once again for show. This time, the stacked Starship served as a backdrop for SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s first official Starship presentation in more than two years. However, despite the fact that neither prototype was actually tested during the second stack, SpaceX did use the opportunity to partially debut Starbase’s ‘orbital launch integration tower’ and used that towers trio of giant arms to lift, stack, and stabilize Starship S20 on top of Super Heavy B4.
Ship 20 was ‘destacked’ with the tower’s arms just a few days after Musk’s event – an undeniably rapid and impressive achievement for the first real use of the ‘chopstick’ arms but still far from demonstrating that Ship 20, Booster 4, or the orbital launch site (OLS) are ready for orbital test flights. Since then, however, Starbase’s launch facilities have admittedly been almost as busy as they’ve ever been with Starship and Super Heavy cryoproof tests.
Ship 20 completed its first basic OLS cryogenic proof test or ‘cryoproof’ just two days after it was destacked. Additional Starship S20 cryoproofs followed on February 17th (the day after), February 22nd, and March 3rd. Super Heavy B4 completed its own cryoproofs on February 18th and March 1st, the latter of which may have actually been the fullest a Starship booster has ever been filled. All told, SpaceX completed no less than six major B4/S20 cryoproof tests in 15 days.
Crucially, all six cryoproofs were performed with Starbase’s nascent orbital tank farm, thoroughly testing its storage and distribution capabilities. Additionally, because SpaceX began liquid methane deliveries on February 13th, some of those tests – particularly with Ship 20 – may have even been proper wet dress rehearsals, meaning that SpaceX may have filled the rocket(s) with liquid methane (LCH4) and liquid oxygen (LOx) propellant to replicate preparations for a real launch.
At a minimum, Super Heavy Booster 4’s oxidizer tank was fully filled with liquid oxygen – and possibly pressurized with hot gaseous oxygen – during its March 1st cryoproof, while its fuel tank was filled about two-thirds of the way either with liquid nitrogen (LN2) or methane. Prior to its February and March tests, Booster 4 had already completed three cryoproofs – some also using LOx – in December 2021. Ship 20 had completed a cryoproof and four static fire tests.
All told, short of finally performing a full Super Heavy wet dress rehearsal and static fire at the orbital launch site, it’s not all that clear what more SpaceX can derive from additional individual cryoproof testing of Ship 20 or Booster 4. Several things do still need to be demonstrated, however. First, the OLS launch tower has yet to use its arms to remotely install a Super Heavy on the orbital launch mount. More importantly, SpaceX has yet to use the launch tower and its swinging ship umbilical arm to cryoproof or fuel a Starship while stacked on top of a Super Heavy. Finally, SpaceX has also yet to simultaneously perform a cryoproof or wet dress rehearsal test of a stacked Starship and Super Heavy, which will be necessary for orbital test flights.
One or several of those to-be-completed tests may be why SpaceX appears to have begun preparing to install Ship 20 on top of Booster 4 for the third time. On March 14th, Starship S20 was moved towards the launch tower and on March 15th, the ship was slotted between its ‘chopstick’ arms. Based on stack #2, the ship could be lifted at any point – day or night – and installed on top of Super Heavy in a matter of hours.
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
