News
SpaceX’s upgraded Super Heavy booster sails through first major test
SpaceX’s first upgraded 33-engine Super Heavy booster appears to have passed a crucial test with surprising ease, boding well for a smooth qualification process.
Attempting that test so early on did not appear to be SpaceX’s initial plan. Instead, shortly before Super Heavy Booster 4’s third and likely final removal from Starbase’s ‘orbital launch mount’ (OLM) on March 24th, SpaceX transported a massive structural test stand from a Starbase storage yard to the orbital launch site (OLS), where technicians have focused on modifying nearby ground systems to support apparent structural testing of Super Heavy Booster 7. As of March 31st, all available evidence suggested that SpaceX was preparing that stand to verify Booster 7’s mechanical strength and simulate the major stresses it might experience before investing a significant amount of time and resources in qualification testing.
However, SpaceX appeared to change its plans at the last minute.
Instead of starting with structural testing, after a brief two-day pause, SpaceX rolled Super Heavy B7 into place and craned the giant booster onto the orbital launch mount on April 2nd. On April 3rd, the launch mount’s “quick disconnect” device connected Super Heavy to the pad’s ground systems. On April 4th, just two days after its installation on the OLM, Super Heavy B7 kicked off the first in a series of qualification tests that will determine when or if the booster ultimately supports Starship’s first orbital launch attempt.
If testing goes perfectly, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently stated that Starship and Super Heavy – likely Ship 24 and Booster 7 – could be ready for an inaugural orbital launch attempt as early as May 2022. SpaceX appears to have leaped headfirst into Super Heavy Booster 7 qualification testing in a move that significantly increases the likelihood of meeting that extremely ambitious schedule. Normally, with a first-of-its-kind prototype debuting multiple significant design changes, SpaceX would start slow, possibly beginning with a basic pneumatic proof test to verify structural integrity at flight pressures – about 6.5-8.5 bar (95-125 psi) – with benign nitrogen gas before calling it a day.
With Booster 7, SpaceX likely still performed a quick pneumatic proof but then immediately proceeded into a full-scale cryogenic proof test. With Super Heavy B4, for example, SpaceX performed several increasingly ambitious cryogenic proof tests, filling the booster more and more each attempt but never actually topping it off. On Booster 7’s very first day of testing and first cryogenic proof attempt, SpaceX fully loaded the upgraded Super Heavy with a cryogenic fluid (likely liquid nitrogen) in just two hours – all with no significant unplanned holds (pauses).
In those two hours, SpaceX likely loaded Super Heavy B7’s liquid methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LOx) tanks with roughly 3400 metric tons (~7.5M lb) of liquid nitrogen (LN2) – not far off what Super Heavy would actually weigh at liftoff. At the peak of the test, Booster 7 was almost entirely covered in a thin layer of ice produced as the cryogenic liquid inside its tanks froze water vapor in the humid South Texas air onto its skin – an effect that effectively turns uninsulated cryogenic rockets into giant fill gauges. On top of running into no apparent issues, Super Heavy B7’s first cryogenic proof is also the first time any Super Heavy prototype has been fully filled during testing – an important milestone for any rocket prototype, let alone the largest rocket booster ever built.
Completing a full cryogenic proof test on its first try makes Booster 7 fairly unique among all Starship prototypes – not just Super Heavies. The contrast with Booster 4, which barely completed a handful of partial cryogenic proof tests in more than half a year spent at Starbase’s orbital launch site, is also extremely encouraging, suggesting that Booster 7 won’t be sitting inactive for months at a time.
Still, cryogenic proofing is just one of several important tests Booster 7 needs to complete. Even if the first test was nearly perfect and SpaceX doesn’t attempt one or several more cryoproofs with higher tank pressures or other tweaked variables, Super Heavy B7 needs to complete wet dress rehearsal testing (WDR) with flammable LCH4/LOx propellant and demonstrate autogenous pressurization (using heated propellant gas to pressure its tanks). At some point, SpaceX will also need to install a full 33 Raptor V2 engines on the booster and seal off the whole engine section and each Raptor with a heat shield.
-
Depending on how many Raptor V2 engines are available, SpaceX could begin static fire testing with just a few engines installed and shielded and then install the rest of the engines and heat shield later on. On the other hand, performing static fires without a full heat shield could risk damaging unprotected cabling or other subsystems, in which case wet dress rehearsal testing would likely follow immediately after cryoproofing and before engine or shield installation. After being skipped over, the structural test stand may also factor into Booster 7 qualification sometime before engine installation.
All told, plenty of uncertainty remains, but Super Heavy B7’s auspicious start suggests that the Booster 4 experience is far from a template and that SpaceX is much less interested in wasting time this time around.
-
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) reported a beat in revenues and EBITDA in its first earnings call report while also minimizing losses as its business continues to gain momentum.
After its IPO in July, SpaceX saw some tough losses on Wall Street due to a major selloff after a delay in its 13th Starship test flight. The ship launched later that week and completed what was arguably the most successful IFT operation in the Starship program’s history.
Nevertheless, the company is continuing on and reported some encouraging financials while also promoting what appears to be a robust outlook moving forward in its Space, AI, and Connectivity divisions.
SpaceX to report first-ever earnings today: here’s what to expect
Earnings Results
- Revenues: $7.8 billion reported vs. $6.7 billion expected
- Adjusted EBITDA: $3.5 billion vs. $2 billion expected
- Net loss of $541 million, an improvement of $467 million from net loss of $1.0 billion
Additionally, CFO Bret Johnsen had these comments:
“2026 has been a momentous year so far, and the second quarter demonstrated the true power of SpaceX. Revenue growth accelerated across all our business segments and we delivered strong operating leverage, with significant margin expansion led by our new AI compute agreements. Our unparalleled leadership in launch, Starlink subscriber growth, new enterprise and government partnerships, and best-in-class AI infrastructure underscore our ability to drive meaningful scale and deliver attractive returns. As a newly public company, we are delighted to welcome our broad base of shareholders and bondholders. We ended the second quarter with $100 billion of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and $47.5 billion in backlog. This financial strength gives us substantial capacity to invest in Starship, Starlink Broadband and Mobile satellites, and our AI platform, while maintaining a disciplined long-term capital allocation framework.”
Space Business Highlights
SpaceX shared some of its biggest Space Business Highlights for Q2:
- Space revenues grew 55% sequentially and 29% year-over-year to $962 million, driven by a higher number of large customer launches and a favorable customer shift compared to the prior year
- Total costs and expenses for the Space segment were up by $389 million year-over-year, as we continued to accelerate R&D investments in our Starship program, which we believe will reduce the cost to orbit by 99% or more relative to the historical average, and unlock significant revenue potential across all business segments
- Leading launch provider for the world with 78 launches and 1,041 metric tons of mass to orbit deployed over the six months ended June 30, 2026, primarily allocated to Connectivity for the deployment of our Starlink constellation
- Starship V3 development continued to advance towards full and rapid reusability:
- Completed Starship V3’s first suborbital mission in May, Flight 12, which achieved a successful lift off from our new Starbase pad, a precision landing of Starship’s upper stage, and deployment of modified V2 Starlink satellites
- Subsequent to the second quarter, completed Starship Flight 13 in July, which achieved all flight objectives including deploying 20 production V3 satellites, demonstrating in-space relight of a Raptor engine, and executing the softest ever splashdown of Starship, providing critical views of an intact heatshield
SpaceX will report its earnings today at 4:30 P.M. EDT.
Elon Musk issued a second pointed warning to SpaceX short sellers on Tuesday, just hours before the company was set to release its first quarterly earnings as a publicly traded firm. Responding to a report highlighting elevated short interest, Musk wrote on X: “I try to warn them, but they just double down …”
The comment came as data from S3 Partners showed roughly 95 percent of available SPCX shares to borrow were on loan, translating to about 34 percent short interest as a percentage of the float. The stock has traded under pressure since its record-breaking IPO in June 2026, declining significantly from early peaks.
I try to warn them, but they just double down … 🤷♂️
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 4, 2026
This marks the second such message from Musk in under three weeks.
On July 17, amid post-IPO volatility, he stated: “The survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low.” At that time, SPCX had fallen roughly 30 percent from its peak above a $2.6 trillion valuation, with short sellers reportedly realizing gains of about $8.7 billion.
Musk’s warning aligned with optimistic analyses projecting that Starship-driven cost reductions could enable a multi-trillion-dollar space economy through applications such as orbital solar power, asteroid mining, data centers, and Mars-related projects, positioning SpaceX as critical infrastructure.
SpaceX is scheduled to report second-quarter results after the market close later today, followed by a webcast. Analysts anticipate revenue near $6.9 billion, reflecting growth in Starlink, launch services, and AI-related segments. The earnings release precedes a major lockup expiration on August 6 that could free hundreds of millions of insider shares.
Musk has a long track record of confronting short sellers, particularly regarding Tesla, where he has argued that persistent bearish positions underestimate transformative technologies. Critics view his optimism as overly ambitious given near-term stock fluctuations, while supporters see temporary dips as opportunities in a longer-term expansion of the space economy.
As SpaceX opens its books to public scrutiny for the first time, the high short interest and Musk’s repeated cautions set the stage for heightened market attention on the results and management’s commentary.
Tesla’s AI lead Ashok Elluswamy doubled down on the company’s strategy regarding Full Self-Driving’s speed settings, and owners are definitely confused.
Earlier versions of Full Self-Driving allowed owners to set a max speed that the vehicle could travel while operating under the semi-autonomous driver assistance platform. This allowed more customization for the driver, giving them the ability to experience FSD’s robust performance with their own personal preferences.
Speed is massively important for obvious reasons — it’s not only a question of keeping the vehicle occupants comfortable by traveling at a safe speed, but it’s also something that could contribute to a ticket or infraction from law enforcement.
With the release of FSD v14 last year, Tesla removed the ability to set a max speed and instead opted for five Speed Profiles, ranging from “Sloth,” the most conservative, to “Mad Max,” the most aggressive and spirited. These profiles not only control speed, but also how frequently the vehicle will execute passes, perform lane changes, and other contributing factors.
The removal of the Max Speed setting was a major complaint amongst the Tesla community because it left owners scrambling for a way to experience suitable behaviors while traveling at an appropriate speed. Most felt the driving profiles would be a good indicator of the behaviors, while speed would still be left up to the discretion of the driver.
Instead, Tesla’s Speed Profiles determine both, and the constant tinkering of how they behave has been a major bottleneck and point of confusion for both owners and the company. From update to update, the Speed Profiles will change, sometimes more drastically than others. Some owners have complained that the “Standard” profile is too fast, while others have experienced “Mad Max” traveling below the speed limit:
What has happened to Mad Max?
At one point it was going 32 in a 35. Traffic ahead had pulled away considerably https://t.co/bjKvaMVTNX pic.twitter.com/aaZSWmLu5v
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
These things change with each update, but the big complaint is that owners are on the hook for any tickets that come from FSD’s infractions; that’s the caveat of the suite being named FSD (Supervised). It ultimately means the driver is responsible, and the automaker has no liability when it comes to speeding tickets or general traffic infractions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to take over or adjust based on this.
Elluswamy essentially confirmed that there are no plans to bring back Max Speed control, because it is what he referred to as “an anti pattern.” He then echoed something that CEO Elon Musk has started to really push with FSD, and that’s the idea that Tesla is really honing in on the preferences of the driver.
Max speed control is an anti pattern.
We are working on better learning of user’s implied preferences.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) August 3, 2026
Owners were confused by Tesla’s decision, stating that there must be a better way, especially considering disengagements for incorrect speeds are common:
This…. is not the way
— Kyle Conner (@itskyleconner) August 4, 2026
😭 I appreciate this mentality ! But currently the no.1 reason I disengage in Australia is incorrect speed zones.
— Ryan’s Model Y (@ryanjaycowan) August 3, 2026
This is fine but you need to start accepting liability for speeding tickets then. https://t.co/lyCgdA83gQ
— Jeremy Judkins (@jeremyjudkins_) August 4, 2026
Okay https://t.co/nOvoXQkNg1 pic.twitter.com/jGRtF2xtox
— Chad Moran (@ChadMoran) August 3, 2026
From personal experience and using FSD for over 72 percent of my driving miles since v14 was released late last year, I make Speed Profile adjustments constantly. If FSD is traveling a tad too quickly, I will scale it back, and if it’s too conservative, I’ll make it more aggressive.
I don’t complain about making the Speed Profile changes too frequently, but it would certainly be nice to have it happen less frequently. There are far too many times I am concerned about getting a ticket, even in Standard mode.
The biggest issue for me, personally, which seems to be echoed throughout the community, is the fact that Tesla’s goal is to minimize disengagements. Many drivers are stating that speed is a major reason for disengagements.
However, Tesla is not willing to bring back this one level of input because it would technically be a regression.
Whether it’s right or wrong in your opinion, it is what Tesla is going with, and it seems like it has pivoted quite a bit from its other strategies for minimizing interventions by pushing its AI to behave in a way that would fit the occupant’s personal preferences.
SpaceX reports beat in first earnings while minimizing losses
Elon Musk sends second warning to SpaceX shorts ahead of first earnings
