News
SpaceX sets stage for Starship booster’s first 33-engine static fire
SpaceX has set the stage for a record-breaking Starship booster static fire after the rocket completed a complex fueling test and launch rehearsal earlier this week.
On January 25th, a tower the size of a skyscraper activated a pair of giant mechanical arms to disassemble the largest rocket ever built. The arms carefully grabbed Starship using hard points under its flaps and lifted the 50-meter-tall second stage and spacecraft off of Super Heavy Booster 7. Nicknamed Mechazilla, the robot lowered the hundred-ton (~220,000+ lbs) vehicle hundreds of feet onto a waiting stand and eventually let go. On January 26th, SpaceX transported Ship 24 back to its Starbase, Texas factory for finishing touches.
Booster 7 remained installed on Starbase’s donut-shaped orbital launch mount, which uses clamps and umbilicals to hold Starship in place and power, fuel, and pressurize Super Heavy. In theory, the next time Booster 7 leaves that launch mount, it will do so under its own power. But first, SpaceX must ensure that that unprecedented power can be controlled (and survived).
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
This, unfortunately, is far from the first iteration of this story. SpaceX has been seemingly close to the milestone at many points over the last year and a half. In September 2021, for example, CEO Elon Musk reported that Super Heavy Booster 4 would attempt the first static fire on Starbase’s orbital launch mount later that month. Eleven months later, Super Heavy Booster 7 gave the OLM its inaugural static fire test – albeit with just one of its 33 engines.
In the months following that static fire, Booster 7 completed another single-engine test, a two-engine test, a seven-engine test, a fourteen-engine test, and a long-duration eleven-engine test. All of that slow and steady testing has been fairly successful and caused no major damage to the rocket or pad. But five months after it began, SpaceX has never ignited more than 14 – 42% – of Super Heavy’s 33 Raptor engines at once. That must change before SpaceX can gain enough confidence in Starship for (and convince the FAA to license) an orbital launch attempt.
During Super Heavy B7’s 14-engine static fire, the booster could have produced up to 3220 tons (7.1 million pounds) of thrust. When it ignites all 33 available engines for the first time, its maximum thrust could leap to 7590 tons (16.7 million pounds), beating the next most powerful rocket in history – the Soviet N1 – by nearly 60%. In other words, SpaceX will be attempting something unprecedented in rocketry. Success is far from guaranteed and the worst possible failure mode could almost entirely destroy Starship’s only finished orbital launch site, explaining SpaceX’s unusual caution.
On January 23rd, Ship 24 and Booster 7 completed Starship’s first full wet dress rehearsal (a fueling and launch rehearsal test) on the first try – an extremely impressive achievement for any rocket, let alone the largest in history. With that combined test out of the way, the only unprecedented test standing between Starship and its first orbital launch attempt is a 33-engine Super Heavy static fire.
To reduce risk, Ship 24 was removed from Booster 7. Back at the factory, SpaceX needs to close a few gaps left in its heat shield, and will likely also conduct careful inspections to ensure that the Starship is ready for flight. Unburdened of Ship 24, Booster 7 may finally be on the cusp of the most challenging ground test in Starship and SpaceX history. SpaceX has scheduled 12-hour road closures that could be used for that purpose as early as January 30th, 31st, and February 1st.
Those road closures could be used for Ship 25 static fire testing instead of or in addition to Booster 7. The Super Heavy is also missing an important hydraulic power unit (HPU) that was removed before the wet dress rehearsal. It’s unclear if static fire testing can be conducted without that HPU (one of two), why it was removed, or how long replacing it will take, adding more uncertainty. Nonetheless, it still appears that SpaceX is no more than a few weeks away from Starship’s first 33-engine static fire attempt.
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.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
