News
SpaceX’s first orbital-class Starship stretches ‘wings’ ahead of Raptor installation
SpaceX’s first orbital-class Starship prototype was spotted stretching its ‘wings’ on Sunday after completing a successful cryogenic proof test late last week.
While minor relative to almost any other testing milestone, the small step still serves as a reminder that the end goal of Ship 20’s test campaign is a launch on Super Heavy to orbital altitudes and velocities. If that launch goes more or less according to plan, Starship will then attempt to survive an orbital-class reentry for the first time, subjecting it to extreme heat and putting its many thousands of heat shield tiles through their most daunting challenge yet. Dozens of things could (and probably will) go wrong, while almost every system aboard must work perfectly to ensure that Starship makes it through reentry in one piece.
And even if all of that occurs as planned with no major issues, those same systems will still need to hold on for several more minutes to perform a freefall, engine reignition, flip, and landing maneuver that only two other Starship prototypes have completed. As it so happens, one of those crucial systems is Starship’s flaps.
Outfitted with actuators powered by Tesla Model 3/Y motors and a pair of Model S batteries, Starship’s four large ‘flaps’ are only capable of simple flapping motions. While they may look the part, Starship flaps aren’t wings and are specifically designed not to produce lift. Instead, in support of Starship’s unusual descent profile, they act more like the hands and legs of a skydiver (particularly one in a wingsuit), allowing ships to control their pitch, attitude, and roll while freefalling belly-down to the ground. In theory, that allows Starship to gain practically all of the benefit of a structural wing like that on the Space Shuttle but for a far lower mass penalty.
Instead of elegantly slowing down with wings, Starship uses its flaps to create as much drag as possible during descent, slowing down to a terminal velocity around 100 m/s (~225 mph) or less. Using a freefall trajectory and flaps incapable of generating lift does likely come at the cost of “crossrange performance,” referring to how far Starship can travel horizontally in Earth’s atmosphere after reentry. However, significant crossrange performance is almost entirely irrelevant outside of Cold War paranoia like the kind that NASA let influence the Shuttle’s design to an ultimately catastrophic degree. Landing vertically also precludes the need for exceptionally long, expensive runways like those the Shuttle needed.
Aside from allowing it to navigate to a small vertical landing pad (or massive ‘Mechazilla’ catch tower), Starship’s flaps are also important for controlling vehicle orientation and heading during reentry itself. To fill that role, those flaps will have to be able to actuate across their full range of motion during reentry, as Starship’s hypersonic assault against the thin upper atmosphere creates a flood of superheated plasma that wants nothing more to find the gaps in its heat shield. Shuttle engineers had to deal with the same issue, ultimately designing complex seals that would allow the vehicle’s wing and body flaps to actuate during reentry without allowing superheated plasma to leak inside and damage their fragile mechanisms or structure.
Although Starship does have the benefit of relying on steel – not aluminum – for almost all of its structures, it still has to grapple with the same challenges of shielding sensitive electronics, actuators, motors, and more from the reentry onslaught that its heat shield and steel structure are designed to survive.
Half-covered in heat shield tiles, it’s not clear how SpaceX plans to seal off the more sensitive, exposed components of each flap’s actuation mechanism – including motors, cabling, and the hinge itself. Based on what’s visible, Starship’s flaps and the cradle-like ‘aerosurfaces’ they slot into do have very tight tolerances and may rely on some felt-like ceramic wool or TPS blanket to seal the tiny remaining gaps. With small enough gaps, a hypersonic airstream can behave as if there are no gaps at all, suggesting that that might be SpaceX’s preferred approach to sealing Starship flaps.
Up next on Starship S20’s path to launch is the reinstallation of 3-6 Raptor engines (for the third time) ahead of a crucial static fire test campaign that could begin as early as Thursday, October 7th. Likely beginning with 1-3 Raptors, SpaceX will perform an unknown number of static fire tests, ultimately culminating in the first ignition of 4, 5, and 6 engines on any Starship prototype. If all goes well, that testing will also mark the first time Raptor Vacuum has been ignited on a Starship prototype and the first time SpaceX has ignited multiple Raptor variants (sea level and vacuum, in this case) on the same vehicle. Stay tuned for updates on engine installation.
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
