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.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
