News
SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review delayed another month
The FAA says that it will take at least another month to complete a crucial environmental review of orbital Starship launches from SpaceX’s South Texas Starbase facilities.
The agency now expects that Starbase’s Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) will be completed no earlier than March 28th, 2022, delaying the process at least another four weeks on top of an initial delay from December 31st, 2021 to February 28th, 2022. However, while the FAA gained some infamy for repeatedly delay SpaceX Starbase launch operations in late 2020 and early 2021, there is growing evidence that other US government agencies – not the FAA itself – are primarily responsible for most of the review’s delays.
Namely, information acquired through a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request indicates that US Departments of Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) and National Parks Services (NPS) are the primary sources of recent delays and the only real sources of discord this late in the process. As an example, as of the end of October 2021, the NPS had a list of at least 31 comments on SpaceX’s Starbase Draft PEA, each of which would have required a detailed response and additional back-and-forth to refine each response. The critiques and requests cover virtually every aspect of orbital Starship launches from Starbase, including FAA launch license details, recent SpaceX land acquisitions, impacts on a local Civil War battlefield landmark, pad lighting, air quality, noise, paint colors, road closures, Raptor thrust, contingency plans, and more.
Meanwhile, in a general review, the Department of the Interior (DOI) – speaking on behalf of the FWS and NPS – raised concerns about “launch site blast area hazards, closure of FWS and NPS lands, environmental justice (EJ) concerns, NHPA Section 106 and 110(f), [endangered] species, air quality emissions, and climate change impacts. It’s difficult to say how many of the concerns raised are actually serious. For example, the point repeatedly made by the DOI, FWS, and NPS is that hypothetical emissions from a natural gas power plant SpaceX proposed to build in its Draft PEA would violate EPA rules.
However, since that draft was published, there is growing evidence that SpaceX is behind a brand new power distribution line set to connect Boca Chica and Brownsville, Texas. The new lines appear to be sized to provide Starbase with enough power to entirely preclude the need for the construction of any dedicated power plants on site. Only a backup power source of some kind would be necessary. Assuming SpaceX is actually behind the development, it’s difficult to believe that the company hasn’t communicated that change of plans to the FAA and other Starbase PEA stakeholders.
As another example, the Fish and Wildlife Services’ own list of complaints includes the bizarre request that SpaceX increase its estimate for the number of failures that will occur during future Starship testing fivefold from 10% (already an extremely pessimistic figure) to 50% because “[nine] of 16 tests or hops that have occurred [at Starbase]…resulted in some type of anomaly with fire or debris.” While true that many of SpaceX’s developmental Starship tests have resulted in major failures or explosions, the FWS appears to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of those failures and SpaceX’s approach to development, which is to learn from failures and prevent their reoccurrence. Something would have to go terribly wrong for half of all future Starship ground and flight tests to result in failure when SpaceX’s goal is to develop Starship into a reliable launch vehicle – not to futilely test prototypes forever.
Ultimately, it remains to be seen if SpaceX and the FAA will be able to secure the DOI, FWS, and NPS approvals required to finish the Starbase PEA. If the parties can’t come to some kind of agreement, SpaceX may be forced to effectively restart the environmental review process from scratch and pursue a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Completing an EIS could easily take years, potentially forcing SpaceX to give up on South Texas as a site for regular orbital Starship launches.
-
While CEO Elon Musk recently implied that SpaceX would never abandon Starbase and might use the site as a sort of dedicated research and development facility, it’s difficult to believe that the cost of operating and maintaining an entire Starship factory and orbital launch site would make sense from a programmatic or financial perspective given that SpaceX appears likely to build a Florida Starbase for East Coast Starship launches. SpaceX already has full environmental approval to launch 24 Starships per year from its Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A facilities.
News
SpaceX just launched a secret payload from California
SpaceX launched a classified Space Force mission from Vandenberg, revealing almost nothing about its payload.
SpaceX launched a classified Falcon 9 mission for the U.S. Space Force from Vandenberg Space Force Base on Saturday night, and the government released almost nothing about what was on board. The mission, designated USSF-366, lifted off from Space Launch Complex 4E with a window that opened at 9:52 p.m. ET and ran into the early hours of Sunday, according to SpaceX’s own mission page, which described the payload only as classified. SpaceX confirmed the launch on its X account and pointed viewers to a livestream that began roughly ten minutes before liftoff.
Watch Falcon 9 launch the USSF-366 mission from pad 4E in California https://t.co/FFEzeYOds1
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 16, 2026
The lack of detail did not stop analysts from filling in the blanks. Independent tracking of the rocket’s stage drop zones matched the pattern SpaceX has used on previous Starlink Group 15 missions, according to reporting from Outer Space Today, which pointed to Starshield as the likely payload rather than a one off government satellite. Starshield is SpaceX’s national security product, a version of the Starlink satellite bus built to Pentagon specifications for earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. Unlike consumer Starlink, government agencies do not have to disclose what Starshield satellites are actually doing once they reach orbit.
USSF-366 is the latest entry in a steady flow of classified and semi classified work between SpaceX and the Space Force. The company picked up a $178.5 million task order in April to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, as Teslarati reported at the time, and followed that in July with a $1.6 billion award covering 18 more Falcon 9 missions from Vandenberg through the end of 2027, also detailed by Teslarati. Add those contracts up and SpaceX’s Pentagon business for 2026 alone tops $8 billion.
SpaceX scores another massive Pentagon deal to support military satellites
The Falcon 9 that flew Saturday landed back near the launch site, producing the sonic booms that have become routine for residents near Vandenberg. What is less routine is how little the public will likely ever learn about what the rocket carried. SpaceX and the Space Force have not confirmed the Starshield connection, and government satellite programs built on commercial buses rarely get identified beyond a mission number and a general orbit. For a company that live streams almost everything else it does, from Starship test flights to Optimus robot demos, USSF-366 is a reminder that some of SpaceX’s busiest work now happens entirely out of public view.
On Friday, Tesla launched the Outlet Adapter that enabled Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) energy transfer, meaning owners could essentially utilize their cars as a power source for things like laptops, electric grills, or string lights.
However, even owners of some of the newest builds of the Model Y are finding out that their cars are not compatible with the new $80 accessory, stirring up a new complaint among members of the community.
Tesla launches V2L Outlet Adapter for Premium Model Y in the U.S.
Upon the release of the Outlet Adapter on Friday, I signed into my Tesla account to order the accessory. However, I was met with the dreaded “This product is not compatible with your 2026 Model Y” message at the bottom of the screen.
Some said their accounts also displayed the same message, but they ordered anyway. However, they might be surprised to find that this is no mistake; some of the newest Model Ys do not have the appropriate Power Conversion System (PCS). Mine, which was ordered on this day last year and delivered on August 31, has the old 48A, single-phase PCS.
Vehicles with the new, two-piece PCS are able to utilize V2L features on their cars:
🚨 Looks like you can hit the Parts Catalog and enter your VIN and check to see if your Model Y will be able to use the adapter for V2L.https://t.co/QA9zRk7n2k
h/t to @SawyerMerritt for finding this out.
I am sad but this isn’t a huge loss. https://t.co/AYpI12QVV9 pic.twitter.com/LRFSrtRywo
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 16, 2026
Obviously, it’s disappointing. Many owners have taken delivery this year and still can not utilize the Outlet Adapter because their cars feature the old PCS:
Took delivery in February of 2026. I have the older one, so not going to work for me pic.twitter.com/RcOVq8gvvT
— Russell (@QuietTesla) August 16, 2026
It looks like if you have one of these older PCS units, you can upgrade, but the parts alone are $1,750, and that’s before Tesla adds labor for installing. It is honestly more logical to get some kind of portable power supply or power station at that point.
It is great that Tesla has enabled V2L for Model Y vehicles, but it is also unfortunate that vehicles that are less than one year old are not able to take advantage of this awesome new feature.
With that being said, it truly is a first-world problem; can you really complain when Full Self-Driving is available, maintenance is incredibly inexpensive, and the car has been so good through a year of ownership?
Tesla has launched a new Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) Outlet Adapter for Premium Model Y vehicles in the United States, meaning you can now power devices like laptops or light strings with your vehicle’s battery.
It appears the capability will be available for any Model Y Premium trim, including those that were purchased prior to the Adapter being launched. It will also only impact Juniper Model Y vehicles, so the first-gen owners will unfortunately not have access to this capability.
If your Model Y was purchased before Tesla renamed the trim levels to “Premium” and “Standard,” it does not seem to be compatible. My Model Y is technically a Premium build, as it is the Long Range All-Wheel-Drive. However, Tesla says it is not compatible with my vehicle.
🚨 Tesla has launched the Outlet Adapter for Model Y Premium in the U.S., enabling V2L capability for all Premium trims (that’s what it appears to be as it is available for purchase with all Premium trims)
It’s available for $80. 2.4kW max power and rated for 120v, 20A pic.twitter.com/lDxlVIk5s8
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 14, 2026
For $80, you can now utilize your car as a portable charger for small appliances or devices. This is perfect for things like tailgates, concerts, or camping, as you can now plug in devices that you might use. Those string lights for camping? That laptop for the other games that are on at the tailgate?
They’ll both utilize energy from your Tesla’s battery to be powered. This is the first time Tesla has expanded the capability to vehicles outside of the Model Y Performance and Cybertruck. However, this feature has been highly requested by owners for an extended period of time.
Tesla launched the Outlet Adapter in China last year:
Tesla China rolls out Model Y L V2L adapter, and it’s free for early owners
You will need the Mobile Connector to operate the Outlet Adapter: the Outlet Adapter will plug into the main housing of the Mobile Connector, where the appropriate adapter to charge your vehicle will plug in.
It is rated for 120 volts and 20 amps, and has a max power rating of 2.4kW.
You can buy it here from Tesla for $80.
SpaceX just launched a secret payload from California
Tesla V2L adapter for Model Y stirs up a new complaint among owners
