News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains how Starships will return from orbit
In the near future, SpaceX wants to begin putting its first two full-scale Starship prototypes through a series of increasingly challenging test flights, eventually culminating in their first Super Heavy-supported orbital launch attempts.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter over the last 48 or so hours to answer a number of questions about how exactly Starship is meant to make it through orbital reentries – by far the most strenuous period for the ship and without a doubt the single most challenging engineering problem SpaceX must tackle.
Discussed yesterday on Teslarati, SpaceX technicians began the process of attaching numerous Tesla Model S/X battery packs to a subcomponent that will eventually be installed inside Starship Mk1’s nose, offering a storage capacity of up to 400 kWh. The need for all that power (Crew Dragon relies on a few-kWh battery) is directly related to Starship Mk1’s methods of reentry and recovery, recently described in detail by Elon Musk.
As noted above, ~400 kWh of batteries are needed to power the electric motors that will actuate Starship’s massive control surfaces – two large aft wings and two forward canards/fins. According to Musk, Starship’s “stability is controlled by (very) rapid movement of rear & fwd fins during entry & landing”, meaning that the spacecraft will need to constantly tweak its control surfaces to remain in stable flight.
By far the biggest challenge SpaceX faces is ensuring that Starship can survive numerous orbital-velocity reentries with little to no wear and tear, a necessity for Starship to be cost-effective. In Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Starship will be traveling no less than 7.8 km/s (Mach 23, 17,500 mph) at the start of atmospheric reentry. In simple terms, the process of slowing from orbital velocity to landing on Earth involves turning the vast majority of that kinetic energy into heat. As Musk noted yesterday, this reality is just shy of unavoidable but there is some flexibility in terms of how quickly one wants to convert that energy into heat.
The fastest route to Earth would involve diving straight into the atmosphere, dramatically increasing peak heating on a spacecraft’s surface to the point that extremely exotic heat shields and thermal protections systems become an absolute necessity. SpaceX wants to find a middle ground with Starship in which the spacecraft uses its aerodynamic control surfaces and body to generate lift, slowly and carefully lowering itself into Earth’s atmosphere over a period of 15+ minutes. Musk notes that this dramatically lessens peak heating at the cost of increasing the overall amount of energy Starship has to dissipate, a bit like cooking something in the oven at 300 degrees for 30 minutes instead of 600 degrees for 10 minutes.
To an extent, Starship’s reentry profile is actually quite similar to NASA’s now-retired Space Shuttle, which took approximately 30 minutes to go from its reentry burn to touchdown. Per the above infographic, it looks like Starship will take approximately 20 minutes from orbit to touchdown, owing to a dramatically different approach once it reaches slower speeds. Originally described by Musk in September 2018 and again in recent weeks, Starship will essentially stall itself until its forward velocity is nearly zero, after which the giant spacecraft will fall belly-down towards the Earth, using its wings and fins to maneuver like a skydiver. The Space Shuttle landed on a runway like a (cement-encased) glider.
This unusual approach allows SpaceX to sidestep the need for huge wings, preventing Starship from wasting far more mass on aerodynamic surfaces it will rarely need. The Space Shuttle is famous for its massive, tile-covered delta wing and the leading-edge shielding that partially contributed to the Columbia disaster. However, it’s a little-known fact that the wing’s size and shape were almost entirely attributable to US Air Force demands for cross-range performance, meaning that the military wanted Shuttles to be able to travel 1000+ miles during reentry and flight. This dramatically constrained the Shuttle’s design and was never once used for its intended purpose.
SpaceX thankfully doesn’t have its own “US Air Force” stand-in making highly consequential demands (aside from Elon Musk ?). Instead, Starship will continue the SpaceX tradition of vertical landing, falling straight down – a bit like a skydiver (or a brick) – on its belly and flipping itself over with fins and thrusters for a propulsive vertical landing. In this way, Starship doesn’t have to be a brick forced to fly, like the Shuttle was – it just needs to be able to stably fall and quickly flip itself from a horizontal to vertical orientation.
Additionally, Starship is built almost entirely out of steel, whereas the Shuttle relied on an aluminum alloy and needed thermal protection over every square inch of its hull. Steel melts at nearly twice the temperature of the Shuttle’s alloy, meaning that Starship will (hopefully) be able to get away with nothing more than ceramic tiles on its windward half, saving mass, money, and time. Once Starship completes its first 20 km (12.5 mi) flight test(s), currently scheduled no earlier than mid-October, SpaceX will likely turn its focus on verifying Starship’s performance at hypersonic speeds, ultimately culminating in its first orbital-velocity reentries.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
