News
SpaceX Super Heavy tank prototype survives crush testing
A tank prototype similar to SpaceX’s next-generation Super Heavy rocket booster has survived a series of tests that repeatedly attempted to destroy it.
Known as Booster 7.1 or B7.1, the tank is the latest in a long line of ‘test tanks’ designed to verify the performance of Starship and Super Heavy and qualify new designs and manufacturing techniques without risking an entire upper stage or booster. In general, that means that test tanks are as minimal as possible and much shorter than either Starship stage, but they’re also assembled out of nine-meter-wide (30 ft) steel barrels and domes almost identical to the sections that make up Starship and Super Heavy.
For most of the duration of SpaceX’s steel Starship program, ‘test tank’ work has followed a fairly consistent and linear development path, where tanks were used to verify design changes before those changes were implemented on more expensive prototypes. B7.1 firmly ignored that norm.
While it’s not an exact match, the tank – built out of two stacked rings and dome sections and measuring about 11 meters (~36 ft) tall – has a Super Heavy thrust structure (where Raptor engines would attach) and external stiffeners known as stringers that are (mostly) exclusive to Starship boosters.
As its name suggests, B7.1 shares many of the significant design changes that SpaceX had already implemented on Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7). The company began testing B7 months before B7.1, subjecting the full-size booster to multiple cryogenic proof tests and Raptor thrust simulation testing to qualify its new thrust ‘puck’ and several other structural changes. SpaceX began testing B7.1 in late June, shortly before Super Heavy Booster 7 was damaged by an unplanned explosion that halted its first Raptor engine test campaign. B7.1 testing then restarted in mid-July and was completed by the end of the month.
-->For unknown reasons, SpaceX’s decision to build and test Booster 7 before B7.1 meant that any significant issues discovered during subsequent B7.1 testing could disqualify the booster for flight testing, potentially wasting the months of work and tens of millions of dollars already invested in the prototype. Ultimately, though, B7.1 appeared to sail through multiple cryogenic proofs and crush tests without any catastrophic issues. Only on the last crush test did any part of the test tank finally give way, and the resulting damage was minor.
B7.1’s testing made use of a relatively new two-piece stand. The tank was first installed on a sturdy base using clamps similar to those on the Starbase orbital launch site’s (OLS) launch mount. Then, a hat-like structure was placed on top of the tank, resting on the surface that a Starship upper stage would sit on during launch. Massive ropes were finally dropped down to attach to hydraulic cylinders on the base. Once B7.1 was loaded with benign cryogenic liquid nitrogen (LN2), replicating most of the thermal and mechanical stresses of real oxygen/methane propellant, the hydraulic cylinders retracted, pulling the cap down to evenly exert massive crushing forces down the vertical axis of the test tank. Simultaneously, additional rams installed underneath B7.1 may have simulated the thrust of 13 central Raptor engines.
It’s unclear what exactly SpaceX was testing. The goal of the test could have been as simple as verifying that Super Heavy Booster 7 can withstand the weight of a fully-fueled Starship (~1350 tons / ~3M lb) sitting on top of it. It could have also been used to simulate an entire orbital launch from Super Heavy’s perspective, replicating many of the forces Starship boosters will experience between liftoff and landing. Given that Booster 7’s upgraded thrust puck had already made it through stress testing, B7.1 didn’t have much to add there, but it may have been useful for estimating the compressive strength of the current Super Heavy booster design.
Regardless of what B7.1 did or didn’t prove, it did so with very little drama. After four long days of testing, at least two of which involved attempting to crush the tank, the only truly noteworthy visual event was evidence of a slight buckle near the top of the tank during its last crush test. A few days later, with the test stand ‘cap’ removed, B7.1 survived one final test in which SpaceX likely attempted to pressurize the tank until it burst. Instead, the tank didn’t so much as develop a leak, reiterating – contrary to their occasional tin-can-like appearances – just how sturdy Starship and Super Heavy really are.
With nothing more to give, SpaceX will likely scrap B7.1. Meanwhile, Super Heavy Booster 7 remains stuck inside one of SpaceX’s Starbase assembly bays after being forced back to the factory by unintentionally explosive testing. The fate of that booster is unclear but SpaceX has removed all or most of its 33 Raptor engines over the last few weeks while simultaneously expediting work on Booster 8, which may ultimately take B7’s place.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk gives nod to SpaceX’s massive, previously impossible feat
It was the booster’s 30th flight, a scenario that seemed impossible before SpaceX became a dominant force in spaceflight.
Elon Musk gave a nod to one of SpaceX’s most underrated feats today. Following the successful launch of the Transporter-15 mission, SpaceX seamlessly landed another Falcon 9 booster on a droneship in the middle of the ocean.
It was the booster’s 30th flight, a scenario that seemed impossible before SpaceX became a dominant force in spaceflight.
Elon Musk celebrates a veteran Falcon 9 booster’s feat
SpaceX completed another major milestone for its Smallsat Rideshare program on Friday, successfully launching and deploying 140 spacecraft aboard a Falcon 9 from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The mission, known as Transporter-15, lifted off two days later than planned after a scrub attributed to a ground systems issue, according to SpaceFlight Now. SpaceX confirmed that all payloads designed to separate from the rocket were deployed as planned.
The Falcon 9 used for this flight was booster B1071, one of SpaceX’s most heavily flown rockets. With its 30th mission completed, it becomes the second booster in SpaceX’s fleet to reach that milestone. B1071’s manifest includes five National Reconnaissance Office missions, NASA’s SWOT satellite, and several previous rideshare deployments, among others. Elon Musk celebrated the milestone on X, writing “30 flights of the same rocket!” in his post.
Skeptics once dismissed reusability as unfeasible
While rocket landings are routine for SpaceX today, that was not always the case. Industry veterans previously questioned whether reusable rockets could ever achieve meaningful cost savings or operational reliability, often citing the Space Shuttle’s partial reusability as evidence of failure.
-->In 2016, Orbital ATK’s Ben Goldberg argued during a panel that even if rockets could be reusable, they do not make a lot of sense. He took issue with Elon Musk’s claims at the time, Ars Technica reported, particularly when the SpaceX founder stated that fuel costs account for just a fraction of launch costs.
Goldberg noted that at most, studies showed only a 30% cost reduction for low-Earth orbit missions by using a reusable rocket. “You’re not going to get 100-fold. These numbers aren’t going to change by an order of magnitude. They’re just not. That’s the state of where we are today,” he said.
Former NASA official Dan Dumbacher, who oversaw the Space Launch System, expressed similar doubts in 2014, implying that if NASA couldn’t make full reusability viable, private firms like SpaceX faced steep odds.
News
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan.
It appears that Tesla is indeed considering an RV in its future pipeline, though the vehicle that would be converted for the purpose would be quite interesting. This is, at least, as per recent comments by a Tesla executive on social media platform X.
Robovan as an RV
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, who called for a startup to build RVs with Full Self-Driving capabilities. In his reply, Elluswamy simply stated “On it,” while including a photo of Tesla’s autonomous 20-seat people mover.
Tesla unveiled the Robovan in October 2024 at the “We, Robot” event. The vehicle lacks a steering wheel and features a low floor for spacious interiors. The vehicle, while eclipsed by the Cybercab in news headlines, still captured the imagination of many, as hinted at by X users posting AI-generated images of Robovan RV conversions with beds, kitchens and panoramic windows on social media platforms. One such render by Tesla enthusiast Mark Anthony reached over 300,000 views on X.
Elon Musk on the Robovan
Elon Musk addressed the Robovan’s low profile in October 2024, stating the van uses automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers based on road conditions. The system maintains the futuristic look while handling uneven pavement, Musk wrote on X. The CEO also stated that the Robovan is designed to be very airy inside, which would be great for an RV.
“The view from the inside is one of extreme openness, with visibility in all directions, although it may appear otherwise from the outside. The unusually low ground clearance is achieved by having an automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers, based on smooth or bumpy road conditions,” Musk stated.
-->Elluswamy’s response on X suggests that Tesla is considering a Robovan RV conversion, though it would be interesting to see how the company will make the vehicle capable of reaching campsites. The Robovan has a very low ground clearance, after all, and campsites tend to be in unpaved areas.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
Elon Musk gives nod to SpaceX’s massive, previously impossible feat
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
