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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
