News
Elon Musk says SpaceX’s orbital Starship debut headed for FAA faceoff in a few weeks
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX’s first completed Starship rocket could be ready for its orbital launch debut just “a few weeks” from now – far sooner than most expected.
On August 6th, SpaceX very stacked that same vehicle – Starship 20 (S20) and Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) – to its full height for the first time ever, briefly creating the largest rocket ever assembled. However, the feat was equally a symbolic photo opportunity. SpaceX did install an unprecedented number of Raptor engines on Booster 4 and Ship 20 in a spectacularly short timeframe and both stages are technically meant for flight, but Starship S20 was demated less than an hour later and shipped back to the factory shortly thereafter.
Though they’d had Raptors installed and been stacked to their full ~120m (~390 ft) height, neither booster or ship were truly complete and at least 20% of their engines had yet to be qualified at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas test campus. Both needed a week or two of additional work – mostly just wiring avionics and installing secondary and tertiary plumbing. Curiously, on August 13th, Starship S20 was once again rolled to SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch site in a partial state of completion, where it now sits beside the orbital launch mount for unknown reasons.
After several days of delays, SpaceX also removed Super Heavy B4 from the orbital launch mount and returned it to the build site on August 11th, where teams are still working to finish its secondary plumbing and avionics. Like Ship 20, all of its Raptors were removed soon after its return, freeing both to complete cryogenic proof testing without risking dozens of potentially flightworthy rocket engines.
Like all previous Starship prototypes, those ‘cryo proof’ tests will involved loading Ship 20 and Booster 4 with supercool liquid nitrogen (LN2), simulating the weight and extreme thermal stress of real liquid oxygen (LOx) and methane (LCH4) propellant without the risk of a catastrophic fire or explosion in the event of anomalies.
For more than a month, SpaceX also gradually outfitted one of two suborbital launch mounts with special hydraulic rams that would have simulated the thrust of Ship 20’s three sea level and three vacuum-optimized Raptor engines – the first Starship prototype with such a configuration. The same was true for Booster 4 and SpaceX had outfitted a new test jig with nine hydraulic rams labeled “B4” – clearly meant to simulate the thrust of nine engines pushing against the Super Heavy’s thrust puck. Additionally, a far larger structural test tool unofficially nicknamed the ‘can crusher’ has been more or less finished after ~6 weeks of work, leading many to assume that Booster 4 would be the first Super Heavy to be subjected to the immense simulated thrust of 29 Raptor engines.
However, earlier this week, SpaceX completely disassembled the six hydraulic rams installed on Mount B and removed all nine rams from the apparent Booster 4 jig. Starship S20 was then rolled back to spot beside the orbital launch mount – not the suborbital mount that had been carefully prepared for its test campaign mere days prior. At the time, the only practical explanation – save for some kind of catastrophic miscommunication – was that SpaceX had cancelled clear plans to cryo proof Ship 20 and Booster 4 with simulated Raptor thrust.
Up to now, every single major design change implemented on Starship’s engine section has resulted in the first prototype – and often one or several test tanks – being subjected to cryo proof testing with a complex series of hydraulic rams used to simulate thrust. That most recently peaked with SpaceX’s lone BN2.1 Super Heavy test tank, which seemingly passed a cryo proof, pressure test, and a jig capable of simulating the thrust of up to eight Raptor engines. However, SpaceX has never tested Super Heavy’s new nine-engine thrust puck and has certainly never subjected a Super Heavy booster skirt to the combined thrust of 20 outer engines and 9 center engines.
The fact that complex custom test stands and jigs had already been assembled and installed for Ship 20 and Booster 4 before they were removed or disassembled without use strongly implies that someone at SpaceX – presumably Elon Musk himself – has either decided that those tests are unnecessary or that skipping them is worth the substantial risk. Indeed, for Musk’s subsequent August 15th claim that Ship 20 and Booster 4 could be stacked and ready for flight just “a few weeks” from now to come true, 14-21 days is simply nowhere close to enough time to cryo proof, thrust sim, and static fire both vehicles; integrate the stages; and perform the first true integrate testing of a Starship stack – possibly up to and including some combination of a full-stack cryo proof, wet dress rehearsal, or static fire.
And, as Musk himself notes, that complex ballet of first-of-their-kind rocket prototypes might not even be the long straw for Starship’s orbital launch debut. Technically, short of some kind of major legal intervention, there is actually no way for Starship to launch in the next “few weeks.” In an absolute best-case scenario, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would release a draft environmental review of SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch site today, accept public comments for the required 30 days, instantly clear Starbase with environmental approval within a few days of the public comment window, and then approve Starship’s South Texas orbital launch license as soon as the necessary environmental permissions are in hand.
In other words, the best-case ETA of regulatory approvals for Starship’s first orbital test flight is arguably late September and going off of FAA precedent, that optimistic scenario is also a fairy tale. In reality, a bare minimum of 2-3 months after the FAA releases its draft environmental impact statement is a more realistic best-case scenario for SpaceX. On the opposite end, it’s possible that the FAA will decide that SpaceX needs to complete an entirely new environmental review for its Starbase launch site, easily delaying Starship’s orbital launch debut by 6-12+ months. That doesn’t even account for the potential looming challenges SpaceX might have to surmount to secure an orbital Starship launch license.
Given the challenges SpaceX had in securing even a watered-down suborbital launch license for its medium-altitude Starship flight tests, it’s not out of the question that the FAA could attach some extremely onerous limitations to that license. Ultimately, only time (and the slightest hint of actual movement or urgency at the FAA) will tell and there is arguably nothing that would better apply pressure in the right places than the largest, most powerful, most ambitious rocket ever built sitting – ready for flight – at a brand new launch pad, waiting solely on regulatory approval.
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
