News
SpaceX shuffles Starships, gears up for more Super Heavy static fires
SpaceX is busy preparing for the orbital launch debut its next-generation Starship rocket, but the company’s South Texas rocket factory is also working around the clock to prepare several more sets of ships and boosters for the flight testing that will follow.
That was more obvious than usual on November 8th, when SpaceX made moves to prepare both of its finished Starships for new phases of testing. SpaceX kicked off the busy day by removing Starship S25 – a newer prototype that arrived at the launch site just three weeks prior – a stand dedicated to proof testing ships. Three hours later, after spending three of the last four weeks sitting on top of Super Heavy Booster 7, Starship S24 was ‘destacked’ (lifted off of B7 and lowered onto a stand on the ground) in the early afternoon.
Booster 7, Ship 24, and Ship 25 have all been busy since mid-October. SpaceX stacked Booster 7 and Ship 24 for the first time on October 11th and then attempted to test the fully-stacked rocket on October 13th. By some accounts, although almost nothing was visible to the public, the first full-stack test may have gone poorly, potentially even endangering pad technicians that approached the rocket to troubleshoot. On October 16th, SpaceX fully destacked Ship 24, and CEO Elon Musk noted that the company was “proceeding very carefully” to avoid an explosion that could set “Starship progress back by ~6 months.”
But if there was a major issue on October 13th, SpaceX didn’t show it, and Ship 24 was reinstalled atop Booster 7 on October 20th without any obvious maintenance or repairs. SpaceX then kicked off an unusual series of tests on October 24th, during which it only filled the liquid oxygen (LOx) or liquid methane (LCH4) tanks of Super Heavy B7, Ship 24, or both vehicles at once. A rare NASA briefing on October 31st later called them “single-species prop[ellant]” tests – a kind of extra-cautious testing that had never been seen before at Starbase. A few days prior, a member of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) noted that an accidental explosion that damaged Booster 7 in July had caused SpaceX to “increase [the rigor of its] systems engineering and risk management,” explaining the sudden influx of unusually conservative testing.
By the time Ship 24 was destacked from Booster 7 on November 8th, SpaceX had completed seven single-species tests, four of which involved loading LOx or LCH4 into both stages and three of which only tested Super Heavy. Booster 7 and Ship 24’s tanks were fully filled and LCH4 and LOx were never simultaneously loaded on either stage.
NASA’s October 31st briefing reported that SpaceX had plans to destack Ship 24 before conducting additional static fire testing with Booster 7. While B7 completed 1, 3, and 7-engine static fires in August and September, those tests were nowhere close to the full 33-engine static fire required to properly qualify the most powerful rocket in history. According to NASASpaceflight.com managing editor Chris Bergin, SpaceX’s next goal is to fire up approximately half of Super Heavy B7’s Raptors.
Strangely, although Ship 24 was believed to have completed all of the standalone testing needed to clear it for flight, SpaceX installed the vehicle on a stand used for Starship static fire testing on November 9th, implying that more standalone testing may be required. For now, that shouldn’t pose a problem as long as SpaceX wraps up any additional Starship testing around the same time as Booster 7’s next static fire campaign wraps up, but it could delay full-stack launch readiness if it takes any longer.
Finally, after Ship 25 was removed from SpaceX’s other Starship test stand on November 8th, it was rolled back to Starbase’s Starship factory. Ship 25 first rolled to the launch site on October 19th and has since completed four visible tests. On October 28th, Ship 25 survived a pneumatic proof test that showed that its tanks were leak-free and capable of surviving flight pressures (roughly 6-8.5 bar or 90-125 psi). Three cryogenic proof tests followed on November 1st, 2nd, and 7th. The first cryoproof was likely just that – a test that pressurized Ship 25’s tanks and filled them with cryogenic liquid nitrogen (LN2) or a combination of liquid oxygen and LN2.
The next two tests likely took advantage of the customized test stand, which has been semi-permanently outfitted with a set of hydraulic rams that allow SpaceX to simulate the thrust of six Raptor engines while Starship’s structures are chilled to cryogenic temperatures and loaded with roughly 1000 tons (~2.2M lb) of cryogenic fluids. If a Starship can survive those stresses on the ground, the assumption is that it will likely survive similar stresses in flight.
Assuming that Ship 25’s first several proof tests were successful, which they appear to have been, SpaceX returned the prototype to its Starbase factory to install six Raptor engines and a series of shields and firewalls that will protect those engines from each other. Once fully outfitted, Ship 25 will return to the launch site for static fire testing and take Ship 24’s place on Suborbital Pad B. Ship 24 took approximately two months to go from its last cryoproof to its first static fire. But its testing got off to a relatively rocky start, so Ship 25 could be ready sooner.
SpaceX could begin the next phases of Booster 7 and Ship 24 testing as early as November 10th or November 13th.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
