News
SpaceX making good progress towards Super Heavy static fire campaign
SpaceX appears to be making great progress towards the start of its first full Super Heavy static fire campaign, building upon extensive Starship testing and a single booster static fire completed in July 2021.
On May 14th, upgraded Super Heavy booster B7 was moved back to SpaceX’s South Texas Starbase Starship factory after completing a successful round of tests and smoothing out an otherwise rocky start to its life. It was not the booster’s first time on that journey: after first leaving the Starbase ‘nest’ on March 31st, Booster 7 suffered significant internal damage during a structural stress test on April 14th and was forced to return to the factory for repairs. Impressively, despite the cramped environment and extremely limited access to the interior of the Super Heavy’s primary and secondary propellant tanks, SpaceX engineers and technicians somehow completed those repairs and Booster 7 sailed through a new round of ‘cryoproof’ testing on May 9th and 11th.
In the ~20 days since its second return, SpaceX teams have been hard at work preparing Super Heavy B7 for its next major challenges – the results of which could determine whether the massive rocket helps launch a Starship into space later this year.
That goal, same as it has been for half a year, is to qualify the first Super Heavy booster for flight. To do so, SpaceX must – at long last – static fire a Super Heavy with all necessary Raptor engines installed. For Booster 7 and its near-term successors, that means 33 new “Raptor 2” engines capable of generating a total of ~7600 metric tons (~16.7M lbf) of thrust.
That’s exactly what SpaceX workers have been focused on doing since Booster 7’s second return to a Starbase assembly bay. Bit by bit, they have spent every day since installing Raptor 2 engines one at a time. Unfortunately, due to the Super Heavy’s relocation inside a brand new assembly building known as the Megabay, High Bay 2, or Wide Bay, the half-dozen or so unaffiliated photographers who have come to regularly photograph Starbase have yet to find an angle that shows the state of that engine installation progress.
Two weeks later, it’s clear that SpaceX is taking its time, which likely also implies that the company is simultaneously encasing Booster 7’s Raptors and engine section in shrouds that will protect them during static fire testing; as well as during launch, reentry, and landing if B7 makes it that far. That’s not guaranteed, however, and it could also simply be that installing 33 engines on the first attempt at installing any Raptor 2s on any rocket has proven much harder than expected.
On June 1st, CEO Elon Musk appeared to confirm that engines are still being installed on Super Heavy B7, but he also verified that “all Raptor 2 engines needed for [the] first orbital flight are complete.” That could include Starship S24, which needs three sea-level Raptor 2s and three vacuum-optimized Raptor 2s, but it’s still great news even if he only means it for Booster 7. SpaceX has been spotted delivering at least a handful of new Raptor 2 engines a week for the last month or two, which means that all 33 engines may already be onsite at Starbase. If some are still undergoing proof testing at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facilities, it could be a few more weeks before all necessary engines are onsite, but that milestone is likely close at hand if it hasn’t already been reached.
For Super Heavy Booster 4, which was inexplicably never static-fired, installation of all 29 of its Raptor 1 engines took just a few days, but the installation of a heat shield around those engines took at least a few weeks. On June 1st, SpaceX also began installing grid fins on Super Heavy B7, further indicating the company’s growing confidence in the booster.
Outside of booster outfitting, SpaceX has also been aggressively refilling the Starbase orbital launch site’s (OLS) massive tank farm, which is capable of storing, subcooling, and distributing thousands of tons of liquid oxygen (LOx), liquid methane (LCH4), liquid nitrogen (LN2), and a variety of gases. For a full wet dress rehearsal (WDR), which has also never been done with Super Heavy, SpaceX would need to fill the booster with around 3400 tons (7.5M lb) of propellant. Out of an abundance of caution, Super Heavy B7 will likely have far less propellant aboard during almost all of its static fire tests, but a full static fire with a full load of propellant – simulating most prelaunch conditions – will likely be one of the last main goals of any static fire campaign. At full thrust, 33 Raptor 2 engines will likely burn around 25 tons (~55,000 lb) of propellant per second, so a huge amount of propellant will be needed regardless.
In the same series of June 1st tweets, Musk also confirmed that SpaceX intends to proceed cautiously into its first true Super Heavy static fire campaign, testing engines “just one at a time at first.” Musk probably isn’t being literal, as a campaign in which Booster 7 tested every one of its 33 Raptors individually could easily take weeks, so it’s likely safe to interpret his words to mean that SpaceX is not going to leap straight from the first limited test of one or a few engines to all 13 center engines, all 20 outer ‘boost’ engines, or all 33 engines at once.
Almost three weeks into the process of engine and heat shield installation, Booster 7 could potentially be ready to return to the orbital launch site any day now, though there’s probably an equal chance that it’s still a few weeks away. Nonetheless, SpaceX is on the cusp of kicking off one of the most exciting and important test campaigns in the history of Starship.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
