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.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
