News
SpaceX’s Elon Musk talks Starship heatshield, rocket landings on Joe Rogan podcast
In a multi-hour February 2021 interview with Elon Musk himself, Joe Rogan inexplicably told the famous engineer and CEO that he had never seen a SpaceX rocket landing.
Of course, the 200+ minute conversation did produce a few minor tidbits of interesting information about SpaceX (and much more about Tesla projects), but Rogan’s statement that he’d never seen a SpaceX rocket landing before stole the limelight by a long shot.
SpaceX landed its first Falcon 9 booster – to an extraordinary amount of fanfare – in December 2015. In the five years since that breakthrough, SpaceX has successfully landed Falcon boosters 73 more times. A full 26 of those landings occurred in just the last 12 months. Falcon Heavy – responsible for spectacular, crowd-favorite performances – completed three dual-booster landings and one triple-booster landing between February 2018 and June 2019.
It’s not unimaginable that almost every single human on Earth with some level of access to the internet or social media is at least vaguely aware of or has watched videos of SpaceX landing rockets. To be clear, it is an unequivocal fact – including past comments on landings from Rogan himself – that Rogan has watched SpaceX land Falcon boosters at least once, if not several times. The only real takeaway, fellow readers, is that heavy, long-term drug use is inadvisable.
Cringeworthy moments aside, the interview did produce a select few minor details that weren’t explicitly known before. Most notably, Musk briefly discussed the challenge of developing a heat shield capable of safely returning orbital Starships back to Earth and revealed the main issue that SpaceX is currently working on.
Over the last six or so months, SpaceX has been gradually expanding small installations of heat shield tiles on Starship prototypes, ranging from vehicles that never left the ground to high-altitude Starships SN8 and SN9. Those tile installations have grown from a handful (4-8 on Starhopper in 2019) to literal hundreds on the most recent Starship completed by SpaceX.
During earlier ground testing and more recent hop tests with Starships SN5 and SN6, some of those ceramic composite tiles actually fell off or shattered, perhaps due to vibrations from Raptor engines or mechanical stress caused by Starship shrinking and contracting from thermal expansion. According to Musk, what SpaceX is trying to determine with those coupon-style tests is how to install a heat shield with tiles that are neither too close together or too far apart.
According to Musk, ceramic heat shield tiles placed too close together will ultimately shatter, break, or fall off when subjected to the stresses of Starship operations. Those stresses include the violent vibrations created by rocket propulsion supersonic to hypersonic travel, as well as airframe expansion and contraction that occurs when Starship’s steel hull is cyclically heated and cooled by Raptor burns and cryogenic propellant. In other words, assuming fragile, ceramic tiles are a necessity, they need to be placed far enough apart to avoid all of those possible pitfalls.
On the opposite hand, though, the entire point of Starship’s heat shield is to insulate it from extreme thermal stress during atmospheric reentry. If individual tiles are situated too far apart, superheated gas (plasma) produced during reentry will find its way between those tiles, heating up the structure they’re meant to keep cool. In the case of Starship, its steel hull is more than twice as resilient to reentry heating than comparable vehicles (like the Space Shuttle) with common aluminum frames, but a few millimeters of steel is still not enough to prevent weakening, damage, or outright burn-through in the face of orbital reentry.
In essence, SpaceX has to “get the gaps just right” – not too far apart to protect the airframe from plasma intrusion but not so close together that tiles impact or damage their neighbors as Starship cools and warms.
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
