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.
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.
SpaceX has announced a new target date for the thirteenth test flight of Starship: Monday, July 20, with the launch window opening at 6:45 p.m ET/5:45 p.m. CT.
This is the first rescheduling attempt of Starship’s 13th test flight. It was set to launch last night, but SpaceX scrubbed the launch attempt.
🚨 SpaceX is now looking at Monday, July 20th at 6:45 p.m ET/5:45 p.m. CT for the 13th test flight of Starship pic.twitter.com/7s8aMJV5Ge
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 17, 2026
CEO Elon Musk revealed that some of the engines on Starship did not start, which automatically triggers a launch abort. Two of the Raptor engines will be removed and replaced.
To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed & replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 17, 2026
SpaceX officially announced the new launch window this morning.
Starship’s 13th test launch comes with a few new objectives, but SpaceX does not plan to attempt a catch of the booster, which it has done several times in the past.
For Starship’s Upper Stage, there are some adjustments to ensure engine reusability that will be assessed during the ascent, and 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites are also set to make their way into space. SpaceX also plans to attempt an in-space relight of a single Raptor engine, which is a critical demonstration for future orbital deorbit, refueling, and deep space maneuvers.
Ultimately, it will splash down in the Indian Ocean.
The continuous tests help SpaceX advance the Starship program toward eventual full reusability, operational Starlink V3 deployment, and future missions, which include NASA’s Artemis program.
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
Tesla enters two new markets on two different continents in one week
