Connect with us

News

SpaceX Super Heavy tank prototype survives crush testing

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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 was not the first test tank to use the ‘can crusher’ setup, but it was the first to do so under cryo conditions. B2.1 is pictured on top. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

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.

Advertisement
A small, bent edge at the top of B7.1 is the only evidence that SpaceX repeatedly tried to destroy the tank. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

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.

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 wins another award critics will absolutely despise

Tesla earned an overall score of 49 percent, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, widening its lead over second-place Ford (45 percent, up 2 points) to a commanding 4-percentage-point gap. The company also excelled in the Fossil Free & Environment category with a 50 percent score, reflecting strong progress in reducing emissions and decarbonizing operations.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla just won another award that critics will absolutely despise, as it has been recognized once again as the company with the most sustainable supply chain.

Tesla has once again proven its critics wrong, securing the number one spot on the 2026 Lead the Charge Auto Supply Chain Leaderboard for the second consecutive year, Lead the Charge rankings show.

This independent ranking, produced by a coalition of environmental, human rights, and investor groups including the Sierra Club, Transport & Environment, and others, evaluates 18 major automakers on their efforts to build equitable, sustainable, and fossil-free supply chains for electric vehicles.

Tesla earned an overall score of 49 percent, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, widening its lead over second-place Ford (45 percent, up 2 points) to a commanding 4-percentage-point gap. The company also excelled in the Fossil Free & Environment category with a 50 percent score, reflecting strong progress in reducing emissions and decarbonizing operations.

Perhaps the most impressive achievement came in the batteries subsection, where Tesla posted a massive +20-point jump to reach 51 percent, becoming the first automaker ever to surpass 50 percent in this critical area.

Tesla achieved this milestone through transparency, fully disclosing Scope 3 emissions breakdowns for battery cell production and key materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite.

The company also requires suppliers to conduct due diligence aligned with OECD guidelines on responsible sourcing, which it has mentioned in past Impact Reports.

While Tesla leads comfortably in climate and environmental performance, it scores 48 percent in human rights and responsible sourcing, slightly behind Ford’s 49 percent.

The company made notable gains in workers’ rights remedies, but has room to improve on issues like Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Overall, the leaderboard highlights that a core group of leaders, Tesla, Ford, Volvo, Mercedes, and Volkswagen, are advancing twice as fast as their peers, proving that cleaner, more ethical EV supply chains are not just possible but already underway.

For Tesla detractors who claim EVs aren’t truly green or that the company cuts corners, this recognition from sustainability-focused NGOs delivers a powerful rebuttal.

Tesla’s vertical integration, direct supplier contracts, low-carbon material agreements (like its North American aluminum deal with emissions under 2kg CO₂e per kg), and raw materials reporting continue to set the industry standard.

As the world races toward electrification, Tesla isn’t just building cars; it’s building a more responsible future.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving likely to expand to yet another Asian country

“We are aiming for implementation in 2026. [We are] doing everything in our power [to achieve this],” Richi Hashimoto, president of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, said.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia | X

Tesla Full Self-Driving is likely to expand to yet another Asian country, as one country seems primed for the suite to head to it for the first time.

The launch of Full Self-Driving in yet another country this year would be a major breakthrough for Tesla as it continues to expand the driver-assistance program across the world. Bureaucratic red tape has held up a lot of its efforts, but things are looking up in some regions.

Tesla is poised to transform Japan’s roads with Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology by 2026.

Richi Hashimoto, president of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, announced the ambitious timeline, building on successful employee test drives that began in 2025 and earned positive media reviews. Test drives, initially limited to the Model 3 since August 2025, expanded to the Model Y on March 5.

Once regulators approve, Over-the-Air (OTA) software updates could activate FSD across roughly 40,000 Teslas already on Japanese roads. Japan’s orderly traffic and strict safety culture make it an ideal testing ground for autonomous driving.

Hashimoto said:

“We are aiming for implementation in 2026. [We are] doing everything in our power [to achieve this].”

The push aligns with Hashimoto’s leadership, which has been credited for Tesla’s sales turnaround.

In 2025, Tesla delivered a record 10,600 vehicles in Japan — a nearly 90% jump from the prior year and the first time exceeding 10,000 units annually.

The strategy shifted from online-only sales to adding 29 physical showrooms in high-traffic malls, plus staff training and attractive financing offers launched in January 2026. Tesla also plans to expand its Supercharger network to over 1,000 points by 2027, boosting accessibility.

This Japanese momentum reflects Tesla’s broader international expansion. In Europe, Giga Berlin produced more than 200,000 vehicles in 2025 despite a temporary halt, supplying over 30 markets with plans for sequential production growth in 2026 and battery cell manufacturing by 2027.

While regional EV sales faced headwinds, the factory remains a cornerstone for Model Y deliveries across the continent.

In Asia, Giga Shanghai continues to be recognized as Tesla’s powerhouse. China, the company’s largest market, saw January 2026 deliveries from the plant rise 9 percent year-over-year to 69,129 units, with affordable new models expected later this year.

FSD advancements, already progressing in the U.S. and South Korea, are slated for Europe and further Asian rollout, complementing plans to expand Cybercab and Optimus to new markets as well.

With OTA-enabled autonomy on the horizon and retail strategies paying dividends, Tesla is strengthening its footprint from Tokyo showrooms to Berlin assembly lines and Shanghai exports. As Hashimoto continues to push Tesla forward in Japan, the company’s global vision for sustainable, self-driving mobility gains traction across Europe and Asia.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla ships out update that brings massive change to two big features

“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has shipped out an update for its vehicles that was caused specifically by a California lawsuit that threatened the company’s ability to sell cars because of how it named its driver assistance suite.

Tesla shipped out Software Update 2026.2.9 starting last week; we received it already, and it only brings a few minor changes, mostly related to how things are referenced.

“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”

The following changes came to Tesla vehicles in the update:

  • Navigate on Autopilot has now been renamed to Navigate on Autosteer
  • FSD Computer has been renamed to AI Computer

Tesla faced a 30-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles stated the company had to come into compliance regarding the marketing of its automated driving features.

The agency confirmed on February 18 that it had taken a “corrective action” to resolve the issue. That corrective action was renaming certain parts of its ADAS.

Tesla discontinued its standalone Autopilot offering in January and ramped up the marketing of Full Self-Driving Supervised. Tesla had said on X that the issue with naming “was a ‘consumer protection’ order about the use of the term ‘Autopilot’ in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.”

It is now compliant with the wishes of the California DMV, and we’re all dealing with it now.

This was the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” names. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was one of those federal-level employees who had an issue with the names “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.”

Tesla sued the California DMV over the ruling last week.

Continue Reading