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.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
