News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk lays out Starship’s path to orbit with sights set on 2020 debut
Speaking on September 28th, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk sketched out a fairly detailed picture of Starship’s path to orbit, from the first flight of the first full-scale prototype to the spacecraft’s inaugural orbital launch atop a Super Heavy booster.
Incredibly, Musk was persistent with claims that he has challenged SpaceX’s Starship teams to conduct the next-generation rocket’s first orbital launch within six months, drawing a line in the sand around April 1st, 2020 (?). How, then, does the SpaceX CEO foresee the next year or so playing out?
A whole lotta ‘Ships
As is the company’s signature, Musk confirmed that the Starship development program will continue to be highly distributed, hardware-rich, and focused on an iterative and continuous process of learning by doing. Starhopper is perhaps the best emblem of this methodology, defying almost every conceivable aerospace industry norm to successfully build and repeatedly fly what was essentially a rocket built outside by water tower welders.
Starhopper may have scarcely been meant to fly at all, serving almost entirely as a proof of concept and learning experience, but Musk strongly suggested that future Starship prototypes will replicate its highly iterative, learning-on-the-job approach to development. In short, much like SpaceX has nearly completed Starship Mk1 (and Mk2) from scratch in less than six months, SpaceX’s development strategy involves building a lot of Starship prototypes as quickly as possible.
Specifically, Elon Musk stated – in his opinion – that SpaceX will likely attempt its first orbital Starship-Super Heavy launch immediately after Starship Mk1’s first flight attempt, a suborbital launch to ~20 km (12.5 mi). Assuming that test – far more critical than any of Starhopper’s travails – is successful, the very next Starship flight could be an orbital launch attempt.
First and foremost, Musk was pretty clear that the rough schedule he laid out was a “stream of consciousness”. Indeed, the eccentric CEO contradicted (or updated) himself over the course of answering the same question, stating that “[SpaceX] would fly to orbit with [Starship] Mk3” before saying that that it would actually be “Mk4 or Mk5”. Musk is still undoubtedly set on announcing gobsmackingly ambitious schedules for his projects, but it’s worth noting just how serious he seemed while discussing Starship’s development timeline.
He noted that SpaceX will likely “have [Starship] Mk2 built within a couple of months – or less”, referring to the second prototype currently in the late stages of integration at the company’s similar Cocoa, FL facilities. Additionally, Musk indicated that Starship Mk3 – yet to begin construction in Boca Chica – could be finished as few three months from now (around the start of 2020), with Starship Mk4 – to be built in Florida – could be just one to two months behind (NET Feb/March 2020). Correcting his previous statement, whether intentional or not, Musk also added that SpaceX’s first orbital Starship launch attempt would likely involve either the Mk4 or Mk5 prototype and occur “less than six months from now”.
As a slight consolation to the eyewateringly ambitious timeline he laid out, Musk qualified his “six months to orbit” target by acknowledging that it would only be achievable “provided the rate of design and manufacturing improvement continues to be exponential”. If that remains the case, as he believes it has been over the last six or so months, then SpaceX could be ready for the first orbital Starship launch attempt as few as 6-9 months from now – sometime in the first half of 2020.
A lot will undoubtedly have to go very right for that to remain anywhere within the realm of plausibility. This includes the rapid maturation of Starship’s Raptor engine and vacuum-optimized variant, the successful completion of Starship Mk1’s 20km flight test, the assembly and static fire of the first Super Heavy booster(s), the construction of brand new orbital launch facilities, and the FAA’s approval of all aforementioned flight operations.
Needless to say, the odds are heavily stacked against Musk’s goal of reaching orbit within six months. There is undoubtedly a chance that SpaceX can pull it off, even if success would essentially involve constructing a bridge while driving off a cliff. However, the most important thing to note is that even if Elon Musk is a factor of 1.5, 2, 3, or even 4 times off and Starship reaches orbit for the first time 12 or 18 or 24 months from now, it will still have been an incredibly brisk period of development for a rocket as large, high-performance, and ambitious as Starship/Super Heavy.
It should also be made clear that, while it’s utterly beyond the present capabilities of NASA and other space agencies/companies of the 21st century, Saturn V went from paper to its first orbital launch in just five years. Depending on how one perceives Starship development, it could be said that SpaceX began development – particularly marked by Raptor engine prototype testing – as early as 2016. Suffice it to say that it’s far from impossible that Starship’s first orbital launch will happen next year, even if the challenges SpaceX faces are immense.
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
