News
SpaceX’s Starhopper cleared by FAA for second and final flight test as locals urged to exit homes
After a full two weeks spent waiting for an FAA permit, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and local South Texas authorities appear to be preparing Starhopper for a second major flight test as early as Monday, August 26th.
Assuming the FAA comes through with a permit, Starhopper is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 5pm EDT (21:00 UTC) on August 26th for a flight test expected to smash the low-fidelity Starship prototype’s previously altitude record of ~20m (65 ft). Confirming initial reports from NASASpaceflight.com, Musk also stated that Starhopper’s second flight will be its last, after which the steel rocket test-bed will be converted for stationary use at SpaceX’s South Texas facilities.
Prior to Musk tweeting that Starhopper may be nearing approval for its next flight, the SpaceX CEO revealed that delays were centered around the FAA’s apparent unwillingness to permit the vehicle’s next flight. Musk specifically stated that the FAA wanted more “hazard analysis”, meaning that the US aviation administration had concerns that Starhopper could pose a serious threat to local residents in a tiny housing development known as Boca Chica Village.
Technically speaking, Boca Chica Village is just 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away from SpaceX’s Starhopper launch facilities, where the vehicle is expected to reach a maximum altitude of no more than 200m (650 ft) as early as August 26th. FAA regulations tend to be prescriptive and extremely rigid, understandable given the breadth of US aviation-related activities the agency is tasked with regulating. However, a basic back-of-the-envelope analysis of Starhopper’s 200m hop suggests that the risk to local residents – even those as few as 1.5 miles away from the test – is minuscule.
Based on Starhopper’s inaugural flight, its lone Raptor engine – producing up to 200 tons (450,000 lbf) of thrust – is not exactly capable of rapidly moving the Starship prototype. For all accounts and purposes, Starhopper is a spectacularly heavy hunk of steel with the aerodynamics of a cylindrical brick – capable of flight solely through the brute-force application of a literal rocket engine. To make it even half of the distance from its launch site to the Village, Starhopper would have to remain in controlled flight while radically deviating from its planned trajectory, all while its flight termination system (FTS) – explosives meant to destroy the vehicle in a worst-case scenario – completely fails to activate.
As evidence of the apparent lack of perceived risk to local residents, Cameron County, Texas officials distributed flyers to Village residents advising – but not requiring – those choosing to remain at their homes during the test to go outside during Starhopper’s next flight. This is recommended to avoid flying glass in the event that the vehicle explodes, potentially shattering windows with the shockwave that could result, but clearly demonstrates the fact that county officials believe there is a near-zero chance of Starhopper actually impacting anywhere near the houses.
Ultimately, Starhopper’s limited flight tests clearly pose little to no actual risk to residents, but this chapter does raise a far more significant question: what happens once Starship Mk1 is ready and the flight tests SpaceX is pursuing involve distances and heights on the order of several, tens, or hundreds of kilometers? For now, answers will have to wait til a later date.
A Hop and a skip into retirement
Aside from the delays and apparent lack of consensus on the safety of Starhopper’s minor hop tests, Musk confirmed that the prototype’s second test flight ever will likely be its last, providing some interesting insight into SpaceX’s next steps. Most notably, the fact that SpaceX is willing and ready to fully retire Starhopper after such a limited test series serves as a fairly confident statement that orbital-class Starship Mk1 (Texas) and Mk2 (Florida) prototypes are extremely close to flight-readiness.
Roughly a month ago, Musk tweeted that those Starship prototypes could be ready for their first flights as early as mid-September to mid-October, “2 to 3 months” from mid-July. In additional comments made on August 20th, Musk stated that his planned Starship presentation would be delayed in light of Starhopper’s own delays, and is now instead expected to occur around a major Starship Mk1 integration milestone in “mid September”.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, Starhopper’s brief service life is entirely unsurprising, delayed by issues with Raptor engines to the point that SpaceX’s far more valuable Starship prototypes – having made relentless progress – are already nearing completion. Once those Starships are ready for almost any kind of integrated testing, Starhopper will be made entirely and immediately redundant.
“According to Musk, either or both of those orbital-class prototypes could be ready for their inaugural flight tests as early as mid-September, perhaps just 1-2 months from now. Given that Starships Mk1 and Mk2 are significantly higher fidelity than Starhopper, the ungainly testbed will likely become redundant the moment that its successors are ready for flight. In other words, Starhopper is fast approaching the end of its useful life, and SpaceX’s fight for a 200m hop-test permit could ultimately be a waste of time, effort, and money if said permit doesn’t also cover Starship Mk1.”
Teslarati.com, August 20th, 2019
On another positive note, CEO Elon Musk says that Starhopper won’t be ‘retired’ to the scrapyard and will instead be lightly modified to serve as an in-situ test stand for Raptor engines, a useful addition once SpaceX South Texas moves on to multi-engine Starship and Super Heavy testing.
With any luck, SpaceX will attempt to livestream Starhopper’s second attempted flight. Stay tuned for updates on the 5pm EDT, August 26th test.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
