News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk hints that Starship’s ‘sweating’ metal heat shield is no more
In the latest entry of SpaceX’s ever-changing Starship design process, CEO Elon Musk has indicated that the nominally reusable orbital spacecraft has moved away from a liquid-cooled steel heat shield to something slightly more traditional.
This information came as a SpaceX engineer announced during Cargo Dragon’s CRS-18 webcast that the twice-flown spacecraft would mark the first orbital test of a ceramic heat shield tile meant for use on Starship’s windward side. This major design change comes as a significant surprise and seems likely to either delay Starship’s orbital debut or hinder its ultimate reusability, although Musk just as recently claimed that the spacecraft could reach orbit for the first time less than six months from now.
Testing a possible Starship windward side ceramic tile. Maximizing emissivity is best for conductive/particle heating. Nice thing about steel is that tiles can be very thin, unlike carbon fiber or aluminum airframe.— ln(e) (@elonmusk) July 25, 2019
Thin tiles on windward side of ship & nothing on leeward or anywhere on booster looks like lightest option— ln(e) (@elonmusk) July 25, 2019
Back in late-2018 and early-2019, Musk took to Twitter to announce that SpaceX was pursuing an exotic metallic heat shield that would be cooled in large part by flowing liquid methane through tiny holes on its exterior, effectively ‘sweating’ away energy and preventing steel tiles from melting.
Despite incontrovertible evidence that SpaceX performed some amount of significant testing on the hexagonally-tiled steel heat shield concept, Musk’s July 24th tweets indicate that the liquid-cooled heat shield is unlikely to ever be used on Starship. For unknown reasons, SpaceX is instead pursuing some sort of thin ceramic heat shielding to protect the entirety of Starship’s windward side (i.e. the side facing the atmosphere during reentry). A handful of the first flight-qualified ceramic tiles – shaped for Dragon instead of Starship – will be tested on Cargo Dragon during the spacecraft’s orbital mission and eventual reentry.
Of note, this is not the only major design change Starship has undergone in just the last few months. Speaking on May 30th, Elon Musk stated that the design of Starship’s landing legs/fins and actuating wings and flaps has changed significantly since SpaceX revealed the new tripod fins + canard wings configuration in September 2018. According to Musk, that change will (or at least should) not significantly impact Starship’s schedule.
In fact, per his July 2019 claims that the first full-fidelity Starship prototype(s) could begin test flights in September/October and reach orbit as early as December/January, the Starship/Super Heavy schedule has actually radically sped up in the first half of 2019. In December 2018, Musk stated that he believed Starship had a 60% chance of reaching orbit in 2020, let alone late-2019.
For Starship, the massive spacecraft’s heat shield is arguably its single most important component. A failure to ensure that the heat shield is unprecedentedly reusable and reliable – even in the face of ultra-high-velocity interplanetary reentries – will severely limit Starship’s ability to achieve its ultimate goals of enabling affordable access to space and building a sustainable city on Mars. Musk’s comment that ceramic tiles are just “a possible” Starship heat shield element further indicates that SpaceX has yet to firmly settle on a heat shield design, let alone qualify said shield for orbital flight or kick off the mass-production necessary to completely cover multiple Starship halves.
Admittedly, there is still some good news in this unfortunate development. Most notably, the fact that Starship will still be made of steel means that the non-metallic heat shield tiles can be extremely thin and light, as they can be more or less directly attached to Starship’s steel hull. Additionally, steel Super Heavy boosters may be able to get away with zero heat shielding thanks to the relatively high melting point and heat resistance of certain varieties of stainless steel.
So long as both of those characteristics remain true, it’s likely that it will still make sense for Starship/Super Heavy to be built entirely out of steel instead of something like aluminum or carbon composite. With any luck, Elon Musk will provide a detailed update on the status of SpaceX’s next-generation launch vehicle soon after Starhopper survives its first untethered flight test.
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
