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.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla has upgraded the Model Y’s two most affordable trims, the Rear-Wheel-Drive and All-Wheel-Drive, with two new interior features that bring them level with their “Premium” siblings.
The Rear-Wheel-Drive (RWD) and All-Wheel-Drive (AWD) trims, formerly known as the “Standard” offerings of Tesla’s most popular vehicle, are now fitted with the all-black headliner and a higher-quality 16-inch center screen, two features that were added to the Premium trims earlier this year.
Here’s what the new Black Headliner looks like compared to the old design in the Model Y RWD and AWD: https://t.co/vaMUZz30UC pic.twitter.com/i1yXjJNu7L
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The RWD and AWD trims of the Model Y now have a more premium interior feel with these upgrades, and it also appears to be a move by Tesla to streamline manufacturing by eliminating variance across configuration levels.
It makes production less complicated when the interior colors are all identical. Additionally, all Model Y builds now have the larger and higher-resolution screen than previous model years.
Priced at $39,990 and $41,990, respectively, the Model Y RWD and AWD are quite different from the Premium trims. Tesla aimed to make an affordable version of what has been the best-selling car in the world on several occasions, enabling more accessibility.
The differences from an interior standpoint are noticeable, as there is significantly less storage, a lack of A/C seats, and no glass roof. However, the car is still a great option and features a good powertrain, strong range ratings of 321 miles for the RWD and 294 miles for the AWD, and a great ride quality.
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
Other shortcomings are the lack of acoustic-lined windows, which are featured in the Premium trims to help with excess cabin noise. In our testing of the Model Y Standard back in late 2025, this was perhaps the most noticeable difference between it and the Premium trim. The stereo was also a huge difference:
This now includes the Model Y RWD and AWD, the two trims that were formerly know as “Standard”
You can see what the big differences are between the RWD/AWD and the Premium below:
https://t.co/ptLnm95KjX https://t.co/vaMUZz30UC pic.twitter.com/scuRNErXoC
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The RWD and AWD trims of the Model Y are still a great vehicle at an affordable price, and you can experience them for yourself at your local Tesla showroom. Test drives are always available, and it’s a great way to experience an EV for yourself, especially if you have no knowledge about them.
Tesla has its answer to grow its automotive sales over the next few years, TD Cowen analyst Itay Michaeli says, but it just has to bring it to the U.S.
On Thursday, Michaeli reiterated his $490 price target and the ‘Buy’ rating he already held on Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA). However, its automotive division has struggled to show sequential growth over the past few years, mostly due to its focus on AI and Full Self-Driving. Tesla already axed two of its lower-volume vehicles with the Model S and Model X earlier this year.
However, Tesla does not need to engineer an entire new vehicle to trigger an upward tick in sales; it just has to bring it from China to the U.S., Michaeli said.
He is talking about the Model Y L, a slightly larger version of the all-electric crossover that is already available in China. U.S. customers have been pleading with CEO Elon Musk to bring it to the country since its launch in Asia last year, but he’s not convinced of it because of the advent of self-driving and its importance in this particular market.
The problem is that Tesla owners have been requesting something larger that could fit a typical American family. The Model Y L is slightly larger than the standard Model Y, but some are concerned that it could still be too small to fit what most people might need.
Instead, they have asked for a full-size SUV from Tesla.
Tesla gives big hint that it will build Cyber SUV, smaller Cybertruck
Nevertheless, the Model Y L still presents a great opportunity for Tesla in the U.S., and Michaeli says that there is an additional sales opportunity of about 100,000 units, with demand potential falling somewhere between 60,000 and 135,000 units.
TD Cowen’s note to investors also analyzed that Tesla’s growth could come from a stock perspective as well, positively impacting the stock price, as it has been widely reliant on vehicle sales, even though Tesla has truly phased itself away from that being an important metric.
Tesla stands to gain greatly from the introduction of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if Elon Musk sees it as a viable fit for the market. Families may need to see Tesla bring something larger to the U.S., or they might be forced to buy from another automaker that offers something that fits is needs for more interior space to haul around the kids.
Ferrari CEO’s self-driving stance echoes Elon Musk’s — sort of
Tesla upgrades Model Y’s affordable trims with new interior features
