News
SpaceX installs full set of car-sized grid fins on second Super Heavy booster
SpaceX appears to have installed a full set of car-sized grid fins on Starship’s second flightworthy Super Heavy booster, leaving the massive rocket just a few steps away from completion.
Measuring ~69m (~225 ft) tall and 9m (~30 ft) wide, Super Heavy Booster 5 (B5) – like B4 before it – will be one of two of the largest rocket boosters ever built once completed. In broad strokes, Super Heavy B4 and B5 are the same. Aside from near-identical dimensions, both have been built to hold up to 29 Raptor engines while Starbase has already begun receiving parts of the first 33-engine Super Heavy. That means that Booster 4 and 5 – while both potentially capable of flight – are also pathfinders for an upgraded version of Super Heavy with similar dimensions but the potential to produce more than 40% more thrust once Raptor 2 production takes over.
While more similar than not, there are significant differences between SpaceX’s first and second flightworthy Super Heavy boosters.
The biggest visible differences are tweaks SpaceX has made to the Super Heavy assembly process. Booster 4 was assembled out of mostly naked steel rings and only had thousands of feet of external plumbing, wiring, raceways, and hardware installed after it was stacked to its full height. That may partially be because CEO Elon Musk had ordered SpaceX to complete the first full-height Starship stack by early August, requiring the build team to prioritize speed above all else.
Regardless, SpaceX appears to be outfitting Super Heavy Booster 5’s exterior before and during the process of stacking the booster to its final height. Most sections of 3-4 steel rings have had partial plumbing and raceways preinstalled, meaning that Booster 5 will be far closer to test readiness than Booster 4 once stacking is complete. Booster 4, on the other hand, required at least several more weeks of outfitting after SpaceX briefly rolled the rocket to the orbital launch pad for a full-stack photo-op and fit check.
On October 12th, after rapidly stacking Super Heavy B5’s upper methane tank to completion, SpaceX began installing the booster’s four car-sized grid fins. Fixed in place and assembled out of welded steel unlike the Falcon family’s deployable, cast titanium fins, Super Heavy grid fins are several times larger and heavier but still serve the same purpose of stabilizing boosters during atmospheric reentry, descent, and landing. Like Booster 4, SpaceX has also installed all four Booster 5 grid fins before stacking the Super Heavy to its full 69-meter height.
Based on B4, that final stack could happen just a few days from now, though there are signs that it might take B5 a fair bit longer. Notably, whereas Booster 4’s aft liquid oxygen (LOx) tank was already fully stacked by the start of grid fin installation, Booster 5’s LOx section is still waiting on its thrust dome. That thrust section was most recently spotted inside a production tent on October 11th – far more thoroughly outfitted than Booster 4’s aft but awaiting installation nonetheless.
That slight difference in timing pales in comparison to a massive tube that may or may not have been installed inside Super Heavy B5 late last month and that definitely wasn’t installed in B4. Without official information, it’s hard to know for sure, but the general community consensus is that this new tube (possibly one of two installed inside Booster 5’s LOx tank) is some kind of header tank or sump meant to collect propellant for Super Heavy’s boostback and/or landing burn.
If SpaceX really is adding header tanks to Super Heavy, it would drastically increase the complexity of booster plumbing, potentially explaining why Super Heavy B5’s thrust section installation is taking longer than B4. Only time (and hopefully a tweet or two from Musk) will tell.
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
