News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk claims Starship will be ready for first orbital launch in July
CEO Elon Musk claims that SpaceX could be ready to attempt Starship’s first orbital launch as early as July.
While SpaceX has been making slow and steady progress preparing the Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster nominally assigned to that launch debut, the odds that even just one of those two stages will be fully qualified for flight before the end of July are quite small. Musk’s claims about what will happen after that rocket is ready are even loftier.
According to Musk, after SpaceX is done preparing a Starship and Super Heavy booster for their inaugural orbital launch attempt sometime “next month,” the company will have a second ship and booster pair “ready to fly in August” and another pair every month after that. If SpaceX rapidly completes the dozens of environmental mitigations assigned to it on June 13th and receives an FAA license or experimental permit for orbital Starship launches, the company does theoretically have permission for five orbital launches out of South Texas in 2022, but the same is also true for all 12 months of 2023.
However, there is very little evidence that SpaceX is on the cusp of being able to complete a new orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster every month. While SpaceX is working on future Starships and is almost done assembling a second orbital-class Super Heavy booster, the pace of that work appears to be about the same as it’s been for the last 12+ months. Yes, SpaceX is almost done stacking Booster 8 and has begun stacking Ship 25. Sections of Ship 26, Ship 27, and Booster 9 have also been spotted at Starbase. But SpaceX has been unable to finish stacking Booster 8 over the last few months it’s been focused on Ship 24 and Booster 7.
Ship 24 and Booster 7, meanwhile, are making good progress but are still incomplete. Both recently completed several mostly successful cryogenic and structural proof tests and returned to SpaceX’s assembly bays, where workers have begun installing Raptor engines and applying finishing touches.
After a month of work, it appears that Super Heavy B7 may finally be preparing to return to Starbase’s launch site on Thursday, June 16th. Since it returned to the factory on May 14th, SpaceX has been installing 33 new Raptor 2 engines, applying thermal protection to those engines, buttoning up the booster’s aft end, installing control surfaces known as grid fins, and completing a few other unfinished tasks. If all of that work is complete when it rolls out again, B7 could kick off the next phase of its qualification testing – wet dress rehearsals and static fires – shortly after returning to the orbital launch site.


SpaceX has never attempted a full-scale Super Heavy wet dress rehearsal, in which the largest rocket booster ever built will be fully filled with more than three thousand metric tons of flammable cryogenic propellant and put through a simulated launch countdown. SpaceX has also never come close to conducting a full Super Heavy static fire, though it did fire three outdated Raptors on an outdated booster prototype a single time in July 2021.
Ship 24’s position is slightly more favorable, as it only needs six Raptor 2 engines installed. Thanks to Ship 20, which successfully completed several wet dress rehearsals and several static fires that ignited all six engines, Ship 24 will also be heading into terrain that is slightly less uncharted. Still, the Starship’s heat shield needs several hundred more tiles installed, one of four flap aerocover ‘caps’ is missing, and thermal protection will need to be installed around its Raptors.

Once Booster 7 and Ship 24 are both fully outfitted and installed on their respective test stands, there’s still little reason to believe that either prototype has any chance of completing all the tests needed for flight qualification by the end of July. In fact, for B7 and S24 to be truly ready for flight before the end of July, they’d likely need to wrap up qualification testing well before the end of the month to conduct another series of tests after the pair is fully stacked. If SpaceX does not proceed with at least some degree of caution and a plan to thoroughly test both stages before a launch attempt, it will significantly increase the risk of catastrophic launch pad damage that could easily take half a year or more to fix.
More realistically, it’s reasonable to assume that Ship 24 and Booster 7 will both run into some minor issues during their first wet dress rehearsals and static fire tests, possibly requiring Raptor replacements or even minor repairs. Instead of a few weeks, serious flight qualification could take a few months. It’s also arguably far likelier that one or both stages will need to be entirely replaced by Ship 25 or Booster 8 than it is that both will be ready to launch six weeks from now. Both Booster 4 and Ship 24 suffered some degree of damage during proof tests that are in many ways much easier than the wet dress and static fire tests they’ll soon face.
Still, despite the many reasons for pragmatism and expectation management, SpaceX has never been closer to Starship’s orbital launch debut, and the odds of that debut occurring sometime in 2022 have never been better.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
News
Starlink is ‘biggest competitive advantage,’ but it’s temporary, United CEO says
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet is its leading competitive advantage in the U.S. airline industry. However, in recent comments, while he described the service as “the biggest competitive advantage” the carrier currently holds, he also acknowledged that the edge is temporary.
“…everybody eventually is going to have high-speed low earth orbit internet connectivity. It’s going to be a must-have. We are going to have a few years of being the only airline that has it at scale, and that’s our mission,” Kirby said. Until everyone has it, United aims to capitalize on its head start by converting trial users into long-term loyal customers.
🚨 United CEO Scott Kirby calls Starlink “the biggest competitive advantage,” but says it’s temporary.
“I think it’s the biggest competitive advantage. And it’s temporary. Like it’s not, everybody eventually is going to have high speed low earth orbit internet connectivity. It’s going to be a must-have. But we are going to have a few years of being the only airline that has it at scale, and that’s our mission.”
“I think we’re going to convince customers that United is the best airline and we’re going to get customers to switch their loyalty, to get our credit card, switch their loyalty to United. Not because of Starlink. They’re going to try us for Starlink and they’re going to stay with all the other technology, and everything else is better, and the technology in particular is so much better than technology other, and it’s accelerating because we’ve got the right tech stack, and because we’re like, our gap is getting wider and wider with our technology every day.”
Next: LAX becomes United’s first 100% Starlink hub in the first half of next year, and the United app will show your Starlink odds for each flight. https://t.co/hToyFWaWj7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 27, 2026
United has moved faster than its rivals on Starlink installations. As of mid-to-late October 2026, the system was on roughly 43 percent of its fleet, with plans to reach 61 percent by year-end, 87 percent by June 2027, and full fleet coverage by the end of next year.
The airline already operates more Starlink-equipped flights than the rest of the U.S. industry combined. Los Angeles International Airport is scheduled to become United’s first 100 percent Starlink hub in the first half of 2027, and the carrier’s app will display the likelihood that any given flight has the service.
Kirby has pointed to early evidence that the offering influences booking decisions. Some passengers loyal to other airlines are already switching flights for Starlink connectivity, something the airline, along with American Airlines, has tried to leverage against competing airlines. Both companies used status-match programs, and some of those customers are pursuing company-specific credit cards, which signals an intent to stay.
Once onboard, these customers encounter the airline’s broader investments in aircraft, larger seat-back screens, oversized bins, connection tools, and a mobile app that Kirby says outperforms competitors. Wi-Fi satisfaction scores on Starlink-equipped planes have been reported to be nearly double those on aircraft with other systems.
Competitors are moving slowly to do the same. Southwest Airlines began installations in 2025 and expects to complete them soon. Delta is pursuing Amazon’s Leo system, while American expects to start Starlink work in early 2027 and has not yet detailed regional-fleet plans. This timeline gap gives United a multi-year window in which it remains the only major U.S. carrier offering Starlink at scale.
Kirby has framed the strategy as pressing that advantage while simultaneously widening gaps in other technology areas so that customers who try United for the Wi-Fi remain for the overall experience.
The approach reflects a calculated bet that superior in-flight connectivity can accelerate share gains and support longer-term financial targets, including a 10 percent pre-tax margin goal.
High-speed internet is particularly valued by premium and business travelers who can work or stream reliably. As low-Earth-orbit service becomes ubiquitous, the temporary nature of the pure connectivity edge means United’s retention will depend on whether its other product and operational improvements keep pace.
News
Tesla Cybercab’s unorthodox paint process explained
Tesla Cybercab skips the traditional paint shop entirely, marking an unorthodox process for coloring the fully autonomous vehicle. However, the decision was a smart one, as it slashed factory costs, floor space utilization, and complexity, since Tesla relied on specialized alloys and in-mold coloring.
Munro Live was given the opportunity to do a factory walkthrough with Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy, who explained and detailed how Cybercab production at Giga Texas eliminates one of the automotive manufacturing industry’s most expensive and space-hungry elements.
A conventional paint line can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and require a million man-hours to build. Moravy framed the choice around Tesla’s core rule: “Question the requirements: why do you need paint?”
🚨 Super cool quote from the Cybercab breakdown on the decision to avoid traditional paint:
“One of the most expensive parts of the factory is a paint line… a few hundred million dollars, a million man hours to build one… rule number one at Tesla, question the requirements. Why do you need paint?… the alloys we use in the castings… don’t oxidize and reduce strength over time.” -@larsmoravy
Model Y and Cybertruck bodies are fully coated and painted. On Cybercab, only the side pieces get the anti-corrosion dip coat, and there’s no paint shop at all, which helps cut factory floor space per car by about 50%.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
The structural answer lies in material selection. The aluminum alloys used in Cybercab’s front and rear castings do not oxidize and lose strength over time, the way many common automotive aluminum alloys do. Only the side modules, built around hot-stamped boron-steel door rings, receive an anti-corrosion e-coat, or dip coat. Front and rear modules skip coating altogether.
Model Y and Model 3 bodies, by contrast, are fully coated and painted.
Exterior colors come from the plastics shop, which Tesla engineers described as “our paint shop” for the Cybercab. Body panels are produced via reaction injection molding, referred to as RIM. Color is then mixed into a polyurethane resin at the mix head immediately before injection, so the panel emerges already colored with a Class-A surface.
Robots trim overflow to control sink marks and flow lines. The process avoids conventional spray-paint defects like orange peel and paint bleed. Scratches can still be repaired with compatible coatings that behave “basically like paint.” Because color is integral rather than a surface layer, shallow scratches do not expose a contrasting undercoat.
The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color
Tesla has also explored related approaches, including in-mold lamination and painted films on stamped panels.
The manufacturing payoff is substantial because removing the paint shop, combined with the “unboxed” modular process that builds and tests front, rear, side, and center modules in parallel before a short final assembly, cuts factory floor space per vehicle by about 50 percent.
Final assembly itself uses only about 25 automated stations, far fewer than the typical Model Y line, and the overall line runs at about 78 percent automation, Moravy said. The approach also eliminates volatile organic compound emissions associated with traditional spray painting for these panels and shortens the coloring cycle from hours to minutes.
Cybercab’s paint strategy is clearly less about aesthetics than about systematically deleting capital-intensive, energy-heavy, and space-consuming steps once material science and process design make them unnecessary. It is a concrete example of Tesla applying first-principles questioning to one of the auto industry’s most entrenched factory requirements.