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 flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
