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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
