News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk kills mini BFR spaceship 12 days after announcing it
Less than two weeks after SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced that Falcon 9’s “second stage [would] be upgraded…like a mini-BFR Ship” to prove lightweight heatshield and hypersonic control surface technologies, Musk took to Twitter to assert that the mini BFR spaceship project was dead, despite having stated that SpaceX was working to launch that test article into orbit as early as June 2019 just 12 days prior.
From a public perspective, the status of SpaceX’s next-gen rocket program (known as BFR) is effectively up in the air after several cryptic and seemingly contradictory statements from the company’s CEO and chief engineer.
No, we’re just going to accelerate BFR
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 20, 2018
On Nov. 17, Musk tweeted that BFR – last updated in September 2018 alongside a statement that “this is [likely] the the final iteration [of BFR] in terms of broad architectural decisions” – had already been redesigned, going so far as to describe it as a “radical change”. What that radical design change might be is almost entirely unclear, although Musk has now twice stated that the purpose of these changes (and the whiplash-inducing cancellation of the mini-spaceship) is to “accelerate BFR”.
Radical change
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 17, 2018
As of now, SpaceX appears to have just completed a massive 9-meter diameter composite tank dome in the company’s temporary Port of Los Angeles tent, where a small but growing team of engineers and technicians are working to realize some version of the company’s next-generation rocket. That group has been working in near-silence for the better part of a year and has accepted delivery of and set up a wide range of custom-built tooling for carbon composite fabrication, and has even managed to get that tooling producing massive composite parts that are expected to eventually make up the structure of a spaceship prototype.
That prototype would eventually be shipped to South Texas, where SpaceX is constructing an entirely new facility from scratch to test the design, technology, and operation of the first full-scale BFR spaceship (BFS). As of a few months ago, the plan was to begin those hop tests before the end of 2019, but it’s no longer clear if SpaceX still intends to build a prototype spaceship to conduct hops and high-speed, high-altitude test flights.
-
- BFR’s spaceship design, as of 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- A BFS attempts a Mars landing in this official updated render. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s huge Port of LA-based BFR tent, September 18th. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s first BFR spaceship prototype is coming together piece by piece. (SpaceX/Pauline Acalin)
Responsibly building giant rockets
One can only hope that the SpaceX employees tasked with bringing an already monumentally difficult idea from concept to reality are learning about these earth-shaking, “radical” decisions and changes through a medium other than Twitter. If those senior engineers and technicians are not extensively forewarned and given some say in these major system-wide decisions, it’s hard to exaggerate the amount of time, effort, and resources potentially being wasted (or at least misdirected).
There is undoubtedly something to be said for getting complex and difficult things as right as possible on the first serious try, especially when the sheer expense of the task at hand might mean that there is only one real chance to try. Still, it’s not particularly encouraging when a three-year-old hardware development program marked by several major design iterations is still experiencing anything close to “radical change”. After multiple years of concerted effort, BFR still appears to be in some sort of design limbo, where a constant and haphazard stream of on-paper changes act as a near-insurmountable hurdle standing in the way of a completed “good enough” blueprint that can begin to be made real.
Ultimately, even if some of the worst-case scenarios described above turn out to be true, there are still many, many reasons to remain positive about SpaceX’s BFR program on the whole. The next-gen rocket’s propulsion system of choice – an advanced engine known as Raptor – is quite mature at this point and may already be nearing initial flight readiness. Regardless of any future changes to BFR’s overall spaceship and booster structures, SpaceX technicians, engineers, and material scientists have likely gained invaluable experience in pursuit of an unprecedented 9-meter diameter rocket built almost entirely out of carbon fiber composites.
Further, it appears that quite a bit of progress has been made over the course of R&D programs related to methane-oxygen RCS thrusters (Falcon uses nitrogen), autogenous tank pressurization with gaseous methane and oxygen (Falcon uses helium), and perhaps even in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) that will be an absolute necessity to generate water, oxygen, and methane that will keep prospective Mars colonists alive and refuel spaceships for the voyage back to Earth.
-
- SpaceX’s horizontal Raptor test stand is pictured here in April 2018. A prototype Raptor can be seen in the center bay. (Aero Photo/Teslarati)
-
- A new rocket test-stand takes shape at SpaceX’s McGregor, TX facilities. As of just a few months ago, this site was effectively barren of activity. (April 17, Aero Photo)
-
- SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities now sport two massive propellant tanks, meant to support BFR spaceship hop tests. (NSF /u/ bocachicagal, SpaceX)
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
