News
SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review is inches from the finish line
Update: Just two days after the FAA’s latest delay announcement, an online portal documenting SpaceX’s Starbase environmental assessment progress has been updated to show that the last step requiring “interagency consultations” was completed on June 2nd.
In theory, that means that to successfully complete its Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for orbital Starship launches, SpaceX merely needs to incorporate all recommendations, requirements, or mitigations added during the interagency review process into one final draft and presumably secure the approval of all relevant stakeholders one last time. Once those documents are complete, approved, and published, all Starbase will need to begin orbital Starship test flights is an FAA launch license.
Securing that launch license is its own can of worms with plenty of unique challenges, but it’s highly unlikely that SpaceX and the FAA won’t be able to come to some kind of agreement allowing the company to begin those test flights within a month or two of receiving a good environmental review. According to the FAA, the final results of the Starbase PEA are scheduled to be released on June 13th.
The US Federal Aviation Administration says that its environmental review of SpaceX’s plan to conduct orbital Starship launches out of South Texas has been delayed for the fifth time in five months.
However, despite the chronic delays and the FAA’s odd decision to announce a new delay every month instead of simply acknowledging that it doesn’t know when the process will be finished, there are now even more reasons to expect a positive outcome.
Even though there were attempts to spin the new information into something negative, a document acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by Bloomberg revealed that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had decided to approve its portion of the Starbase environmental review. Their only condition: that SpaceX implement a few small mitigation measures, “including contracting with a qualified biologist to conduct monitoring of vegetation and birds, operating an employee shuttle between the launch facility site and nearby town of Brownsville, reducing vehicle traffic, and adjusting lights to minimize the impact on sea turtles.” Bloomberg chose not to publish the documents it received through the FOIA process.
In the same set of documents, the FWS also revealed that SpaceX has removed a request for permission to build a small desalination plant, a natural gas production and liquefaction plant, and a natural gas power plant at or near Starbase’s launch site from Starbase’s first Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). That change comes as little surprise. In fact, SpaceX’s decision to pursue a “programmatic” assessment instead of a more common standalone assessment means that the company will be able to pursue additions to a basic Starbase environmental approval without having to rebuild the foundation each time.
In this case, a “basic approval” would mean the ability to conduct at least a few orbital Starship launches per year. Once that foundation is secured, SpaceX should be able to tier new environmental assessments on top of it and pursue permission for a desalination plant, natural gas production, more annual launches, or any other additions that might benefit Starbase. The simpler the foundation, the harder it should be for environmental stakeholders and agencies to protest or prevent SpaceX from receiving a good outcome.
“The FAA now plans to release the Final PEA on June 13, 2022 to account for ongoing interagency consultations concerning Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. All other consultations and analysis have been completed at this time.”
Another cause for optimism: after four delays of one or two months, the FAA’s latest delay announcement only pushes the conclusion of the review from May 31st to June 13th. Additionally, the FAA confirmed that only one small component of the entire review remains unfinished. Every other major component has been completed successfully and will likely result in a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Mitigated FONSI that would greenlight the environmental side of conducting orbital Starship launches out of Boca Chica, Texas.
When the draft PEA was first published, the FAA noted several points of contention over Section 4(f) compliance, which is designed to “protect significant publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, as well as significant historic sites, whether they are publicly or privately owned.” At the time, the main problem was SpaceX’s request to close the public Boca Chica Beach and the only highway to it for up to 500 hours (~42 days), as well as a contingency that would allow for another 300 hours of closures to safely respond to emergencies.
Thanks to an even more in-depth environmental impact statement (EIS) completed in 2014 for a Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch pad where Starship’s launch site now stands, we know that SpaceX has already met Section 4(f) demands with a plan for up to 180 hours of road closures per year. In the absolute worst-case scenario, SpaceX should be able to drastically reduce its road closure request to satisfy the Department of Transportation. Subsisting on roughly 20-30 days of closures per year would undoubtedly maim Starbase’s utility but it would at least allow SpaceX to conduct a few basic orbital test flights and some limited ground testing while it rapidly redirects most of its effort to finishing alternative Starship production and launch facilities in Florida.
Regardless, it’s now quite likely that SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review will finally be over by the end of June, freeing up the FAA and SpaceX to focus fully on the launch license side of the equation. Meanwhile, SpaceX still has weeks or even months of work ahead of it to prepare a Starship and Super Heavy pair for their first orbital launch attempt, so (for now) there is no risk of the company being forced to sit around and wait for the gears of bureaucracy to turn.
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
