News
Starhopper update: SpaceX’s ungainly Starship testbed survives night of fireballs, Raptor testing
SpaceX’s Starhopper appears to have come out the other end of an eventful night of fires, fireballs, and Raptor testing completely unscathed, although – as with all things rocketry – there is vastly more than meets the eye.
However, signs point towards Starhopper being almost entirely unharmed by its brief voyage inside a fireball – even if Boca Chica’s fire suppression system got a thorough workout and many a SpaceX onlooker likely suffered a partial heart attack. For the time being, it’s safe to assume that Starhopper’s planned flight activities have been indefinitely delayed as SpaceX technicians analyze the vehicle and engineers work to mitigate or completely prevent major fires from recurring.
According to NASASpaceflight.com’s well-informed sources, despite the spectacular fireworks that followed Raptor’s own impressive display, the engine’s static fire test was a full success – at least in terms of data produced by the engine. The large fireball was attributed to the ignition of a large methane vent that followed soon after Raptor’s shutdown.
For now, this means that Starhopper’s untethered flight test and hover test debut should not be expected to occur for several days, even in the event that the rocket, pad, and Raptor engine all made it through their July 16th ordeal completely undamaged. If there is zero damage, this accident will serve as an unfortunate but useful demonstration of a true stainless steel rocket’s theoretically exceptional sturdiness and heat resistance.
Despite suffering what looked like a serious fireball-related anomaly, #Starhopper appears to have been refueled and is visibly venting while the flare stack burns off excess methane. Very good sign that the issue looked worse than it is. Via @labpadrehttps://t.co/sOHShoRByb pic.twitter.com/cs6FSMcZ0T— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 17, 2019
It may seem more than a little ironic, but it’s likely less than a coincidence. If it comes to fruition as a truly functional, orbit-capable steel rocket, spaceship, and upper stage, Starship/Super Heavy will exist in their shiny, steel forms almost entirely because of the unintuitive tradeoffs that could theoretically make heat-resistant-but-dense steel more efficient than a ship built out of ultra-light carbon composites. If Starhopper’s newly demonstrated resilience is anything to go by, a very happy side-effect of that efficient, heat-resistant steel could be an almost unprecedented resilience in the face of serious fires, fireballs, and other fire-related anomalies.
For almost any other rocket, exposure – at least outside of the engine section – to large fireballs and quite literally having parts burning while motionless on the ground are deeply, deeply worrisome things and risk a major vehicle malfunction – potentially up to and including a catastrophic failure (i.e. explosion). ULA’s Delta IV rocket family is famous for self-immolating during ignition and liftoff, a minimal concern to the rockets’ thin, aluminum tankage thanks to several inches of thick, fire-retardant foam insulation.
For a rocket like Falcon 9, almost entirely (by surface area) composed of thin, aluminum propellant tanks and carbon composite structures, there is a constant struggle to balance the vehicle’s extreme performance with the low melting point of its primary structures (~720 degrees C). The 301-series stainless steel Starhopper and Starship(s) are built out of has a melting point of ~1400 degrees C, nearly double aluminum-lithium alloys.
In short, while it boggles the mind and is decidedly unintuitive to anyone who watched July 16th’s live coverage of the static fire, it’s actually not a huge surprise that Starhopper has suffered serious fire-related anomalies with essentially zero visible damage. In fact, it’s almost impossible to tell that anything at all happened, let alone discerning some subtle sign(s) of damage incurred by fires. It may sound ironic to say so, but rockets and fire just do not tend to like each other much at all.
Time will tell if Starhopper and Raptor are in as good a condition as they appear to be.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
