Connect with us

News

SpaceX President updates schedule for Starship’s orbital launch debut

Published

4 years ago

on

SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell says that the company now expects Starbase to be ready for Starship’s first orbital launch attempt as early as June or July, pushing the schedule back another month or two.

To accomplish that feat, SpaceX will need to more or less ace a wide range of challenging and unproven tests and pass a series of exhaustive bureaucratic reviews, significantly increasing the odds that Starship’s orbital launch debut is actually closer to 3-6 months away. While SpaceX could technically pull off a miracle or even attempt to launch hardware that has only been partially tested, even the most optimistic of hypothetical scenarios are still contingent upon things largely outside of the company’s control.

Will FAA or won’t FAA?

Both revolve around the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which – in SpaceX’s case – is responsible for completing a ‘programmatic environmental assessment’ (PEA) of orbital Starship launches out of Boca Chica, Texas and issuing a launch license for the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. In some ways, both tasks are unprecedented, but the bureaucratic processes involved are still largely the same as those SpaceX has successfully navigated over the last two decades.

First up, the FAA’s environmental review. Until very recently, the fate of Starbase’s PEA was almost completely indeterminable and could have gone any number of ways – most of which would not be favorable for SpaceX. However, just a few days ago and about a week after the FAA’s latest one-to-two-month PEA delay announcement, the agency updated an online dashboard to show that the fourth of five main PEA processes had been completed successfully. The most important part of the update is the implication that SpaceX and the FAA have now completed almost every aspect of the PEA that requires cooperation with other federal agencies and local stakeholders.

Advertisement

Only one more cooperative process – ensuring “Section 4(f)” compliance – still needs to be completed. Without delving into the details, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that that particular step will be a showstopper, though SpaceX might have to compromise on certain aspects of Starbase operations to complete it. Once Section 4(f) is behind them, the only thing standing between the FAA and SpaceX and a Final PEA is the completion and approval of all relevant paperwork. In other words, for the first time ever, the FAA’s targeted completion date – currently May 31st, 2022 – may actually be achievable.

Still, as the FAA itself loves to repeatedly point out, “the completion of the PEA will not guarantee that the FAA will issue a launch license – SpaceX’s application must also meet FAA safety, risk, and financial responsibility requirements.” Even if the PEA is perfect, SpaceX still has to secure an FAA launch license for the largest and most powerful rocket in history. It’s unclear if SpaceX and the FAA have already begun that painful back-and-forth or if some tedious fine print prevents it from starting before an environmental review is in place. Without knowing more, launch licensing could take anywhere from a few days to several months.

A series of tubes

Without the FAA’s launch license and environmental approval, any Starship SpaceX builds cannot legally launch from Starbase. On the other side of the coin, though, it’s just as true that the FAA’s nods of approval are worth about as much as the paper they’re written on without a rocket that’s ready to launch. In a perfect world, SpaceX would have a Starship and Super Heavy booster fully qualified, stacked, and sitting at Starbase’s orbital launch site when the FAA finally gives a green light. However, that’s not quite what SpaceX’s reality is today.

SpaceX has made a significant amount of progress in the last month and a half, but contrary to CEO Elon Musk’s hopes as of March 21st, the company will absolutely not be ready to attempt an orbital launch by the end of May. Nonetheless, Shotwell’s estimate of “June or July” may not be completely out of reach. Since Musk’s tweet, SpaceX finished assembling Super Heavy Booster 7, rolled the rocket to the launch site on March 31st, and completed several major tests in early April. However, during the last test, an apparent operator error significantly damaged a large part installed inside the booster, forcing SpaceX to return Super Heavy B7 to Starbase’s build site. After two and a half weeks of repairs, Booster 7 returned to the launch site on May 6th and completed another ‘cryoproof’ test, seemingly verifying that those quick repairs did the job.

Advertisement

Had Booster 7 not required repairs, it’s not impossible (but still hard) to imagine that SpaceX could have had a Super Heavy booster ready to launch by the end of May. Still, the static fire testing Booster 7 needs to complete is almost entirely unprecedented and could take months to complete. To date, SpaceX has never ignited more than six Raptors at once on a Starship prototype, while Super Heavy will likely need to complete multiple 33-engine tests before it can be safely considered ready for flight. Worse, there is no guarantee that SpaceX actually wants to fly Booster 7 after the damage it suffered. If Booster 8 carries the torch forward instead, Starship’s orbital launch debut could easily slip to late Q3 or Q4 2022.

Meanwhile, Super Heavy is only half of the rocket. When Musk tweeted his “hopefully May” estimate, SpaceX was nowhere close to finishing the Starship – Ship 24 – that is believed to have been assigned to the orbital launch debut. However, SpaceX finally accelerated Ship 24 assembly within the last few weeks and ultimately finished stacking the upgraded Starship on May 8th. A great deal of work remains to truly complete Ship 24, but SpaceX should be ready to send it to a test stand within a week or two. Even though the testing Ship 24 will need to complete has been done before by Ship 20, making its path forward less risky than Booster 7’s, Ship 24 will debut a number of major design changes and likely needs at least two months of testing to reach a basic level of flight readiness.

Last but not least, there’s the question of the orbital launch site (OLS) itself. Is the launch mount ready to survive a full Super Heavy static fire? Is the pad’s tank farm ready to fill Starship and Super Heavy with several thousand tons of flammable, explosive cryogenic propellant? If it’s a goal of the test flight, is the launch tower ready for a Super Heavy booster to attempt to land in its arms? While there are reasons to believe that the answer to some of those questions is “yes,” plenty of uncertainty remains and plenty of work is still incomplete.

Ultimately, Shotwell’s June goal is almost certainly unachievable. Late July, however, might be within the realm of possibility, but only in the unlikely event that all Booster 7 and Ship 24 testing is completed almost perfectly and without further delay. For the pragmatic reader, August or September is a safer bet. Thankfully, at least one thing is certain: activity at Starbase is about to get significantly more exciting.

Advertisement
Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences

Published

5 hours ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

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.”

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.

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.

Continue Reading

News

Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage

Published

8 hours ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Credit: ABC News

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.”

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:

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.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla enters two new markets on two different continents in one week

Published

1 day ago

on

July 17, 2026

By

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.

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.

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.

Continue Reading