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 short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
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 short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
