News
SpaceX a big step closer to orbital Starship launches after passing FAA environmental review
SpaceX has secured environmental approval from the FAA and relevant federal, state, and local stakeholders to conduct orbital Starship launches on the South Texas coast.
After a relatively normal 12 months of work and half a dozen poorly communicated delays, the FAA has ultimately issued SpaceX an extremely favorable “Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact” or Mitigated FONSI for its plans to conduct a very limited number of orbital Starship launches per year out of Boca Chica, Texas. With the receipt of that final programmatic environmental assessment (PEA), SpaceX has arguably hurdled the most difficult regulatory barrier for Texas orbital Starship launches and secured itself a foundation upon which it should be able to attempt to expand the scope of Starbase’s long-term utility.
To secure that favorable result, however, SpaceX ultimately agreed to dozens upon dozens of “mitigations” that will take a significant amount of work to complete and maintain in order to partially alleviate some of the launch site’s environmental impact. It’s also far from the last regulatory hurdle standing between SpaceX and orbital Starship launches.
In many ways, Starbase’s Final PEA is a bit simpler than what SpaceX initially requested in its September 2021 draft. As previously discussed, it was already known that SpaceX had withdrawn initial plans to build its own dedicated natural gas power plant, desalination plant, and natural gas refinery and liquefaction facilities at or near the launch site before the draft was finalized. The Final PEA goes a bit further, simplifying SpaceX’s initial request for two “phases” of annual Starship launch operations and settling on a single “operational phase” that allows up to five suborbital and five orbital Starship launches per year.
However, aside from the already expected removal of onsite methane fuel production and all associated facilities, the rest of the Final PEA appears to be surprisingly close – if not outright identical – to SpaceX’s Starbase Draft PEA. Crucially, SpaceX was not forced to reduce the number of permitted orbital launches, suborbital launches, or ship/booster static fire tests it originally pursued. While a maximum of five orbital launches will severely limit Starbase’s utility outside of early flight testing, it’s still a big improvement over a compromise for 1-4 annual launches.
Perhaps even more notably, the Final PEA also includes permission for up to 500 hours of highway closures for nominal operations and up to 300 hours of closures for emergency anomaly response per year – exactly what SpaceX requested in its Draft PEA. In 2014, SpaceX completed an even more thorough environmental impact statement (EIS) for Falcon rocket launches out of Boca Chica and received approval for no more than 180 hours of annual closures – a restriction that could have made Starbase virtually unusable as a hub for Starship development.
Of the dozens of mitigations SpaceX will have to implement to conduct Starship launches under its new Starbase PEA, a majority appear to be normal and reasonable. Most focus on specific aspects of things already discussed, like protecting turtles (lighting, beach cleanup, education, nest scouting and monitoring, etc.), safeguarding other protected species, respecting impacted areas of historical importance; ensuring that road closures avoid certain holidays and periods to limit Starbase’s impact on local use of public parks and beaches; and other common-sense extensions of existing rules and regulations. In a few cases, SpaceX has even agreed to deploy solar-powered Starlink internet terminals to enable “enhanced satellite monitoring” of wildlife for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Peregrine Fund.
Others are oddly specific and read a bit more like local and state agencies taking advantage of their leverage to get SpaceX to manage and pay for basic infrastructure maintenance and improvement that any functional government should already be doing. The lengthy list of odd “mitigations” includes the following:
-
- Quarterly beach and highway cleanups
- Construct at least one highway wildlife crossing
- Construct a wildlife viewing platform along Highway 4
- Complete and maintain traffic control fencing demarcating the boundaries of TPWD land along said public highway
- $5,000 per year to “enhance” the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) fishing “Tackle Loaner Program”
- Prepare a history report on any events and activities of the Mexican War and Civil War that took place in all affected areas of historical importance
- Fund the development of five signs explaining the “history and significance” of those areas
- “[Replicate and install] the missing stars and wreaths on the Palmetto Pilings Historical Marker”
Ultimately, the Final PEA SpaceX received is an extremely positive outcome, and there should be little doubt that SpaceX will complete all mitigations requested of it and help improve aspects of Boca Chica, Texas as a result. Up next, SpaceX will need to secure an orbital Starship launch license from the FAA by demonstrating, to the agency’s satisfaction, that it meets “safety, risk, and financial responsibility requirements” in addition to all environmental requirements. The company has already begun that process with the FAA, but it could still take weeks or months after the Final PEA to secure an operator license or experimental permit. Any such license or permit will be conditional upon the completion of all mitigation requirements established by the PEA.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
