Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s most important Super Heavy booster part makes first appearance

Published

on

What is arguably the most complex and important part of SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster prototype has made its first appearance at the company’s South Texas Starship factory.

Following in the footsteps of Starship development, Super Heavy has been able to extensively borrow from the many lessons learned over the course of building, testing, flying, and building more Starship prototypes. SpaceX is able to use virtually identical materials, equipment, and techniques to build and assemble both Starship and Super Heavy propellant tank barrels and domes, while both stages will also share an extensive foundation of avionics, plumbing, propulsion, and ground systems, among other things.

In fact, lacking a conical nose, secondary (‘header’) propellant tanks, flaps, a reusable orbital-class heatshield, and vacuum-optimized Raptor engines, Super Heavy is actually substantially simpler than the Starships it will one day launch towards orbit. However, not everything is simpler. Super Heavy will ultimately be the largest and most powerful liquid-fueled rocket stage ever built or tested – power that demands as many as 28 Raptor engines and a thrust structure capable of feeding and withstanding them.

Designing, building, and testing such a thrust structure is arguably one of – if not the – most challenging engineering hurdle standing between SpaceX and its aspirational Super Heavy design. It’s the first of those Super Heavy-specific thrust structures – in the form of a tank dome – that was spotted at SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas Starship factory on January 25th, roughly six weeks after its main component was spotted.

Advertisement

Unlike Starship, which relies on a small central ‘thrust puck’ fit for three sea-level-optimized Raptor engines and plans for three larger vacuum-optimized engines that will attach to the side of its hull, Super Heavy’s current design iteration features as many as 28 sea-level Raptors. Aside from CEO Elon Musk revealing that Super Heavy would have a central cluster of eight engines, the precise configuration has been a mystery.

A look at Starship’s three-and-three thrust section configuration. (SpaceX)

The reality, as recently captured in photos above by NASASpaceflight photographers and contributors Mary (BocaChicaGal) and Jack Beyer, appears to be a much larger donut-shaped ring with space for eight gimballing Raptor engines. The remaining 20 Raptor engines would then be installed – possible mounted to the skirt, the thrust dome, or both – in the space left between the thrust donut and Super Heavy’s skirt.

Either way, the structures behind the two rings of engines will have to withstand at least 6600 metric tons (14.5 million lbf) of thrust at liftoff – approximately twice the thrust of Saturn V and Soviet N-1 rockets and more than three times the thrust of SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy. Holding eight Raptors, the donut structure and dome recently pictured for the first time will also have to singlehandedly stand up to 1600 tons (3.5 million lbf; two Falcon 9s’ worth) of thrust while gravity, acceleration, and some 2500 tons of supercooled liquid oxygen push in the opposite direction.

Starship SN9’s standard thrust puck and dome. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
While seemingly identical from the ‘waist’ down, the first Super Heavy thrust dome obviously features a far larger Raptor engine ‘puck’ (donut?) at its base. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Starship SN8 is slowly lowered onto Stand A, outfitted with a hydraulic ram used to simulate the mechanical stress of Raptor thrust. Super Heavy boosters will likely be tested in a similar manner, at first. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

In simpler terms, the business end of Super Heavy poses an extraordinarily difficult challenge and SpaceX has already built the first true-to-life prototype, with future iterations likely close on its heels. Much like Starship, if/when prototype booster number one (BN1) passes basic pressure and cryogenic proof tests, SpaceX will likely focus the rest of Super Heavy’s first test campaign on stressing the rocket’s unproven thrust structure to its design limits.

Like Starship, SpaceX will likely try to begin with nonexplosive methods, perhaps using a similar – but far larger – series of hydraulic rams to less riskily simulate the thrust of 8-28 Raptor engines. A steel structure spotted on a recent aerial overflight of SpaceX’s Starship factory might even fit the bill for such a structure, though only time will tell.

Based on an apparent acceleration of Super Heavy assembly work that may have started last week, as well as the crucial appearance of the last missing puzzle piece in the form of BN1’s thrust dome, the first booster could be completed and ready for testing sooner than later.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles

The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.

The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.

Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.

Credit: Tesla

The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.

The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable. 

Advertisement

As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.

At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.

With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”

Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”

Published

on

UK Government, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.

Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”

Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality. 

“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.

Advertisement

When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.

After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”

“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.

Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.

Advertisement

During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.

As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike

The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Charging

Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.

The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.

While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing. 

“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely. 

Advertisement

“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said. 

The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.

Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”

Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker. 

Advertisement

“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all. 

“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said. 

Continue Reading