News
SpaceX’s Starship briefly becomes the most powerful active rocket in the world
A SpaceX Starship booster has successfully fired up 14 of its 33 Raptor engines, likely becoming the most powerful active rocket in the world.
Throughout the history of spaceflight, only three or four other rockets have produced as much or more thrust than Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7) could have theoretically produced on November 14th. But the Soviet Energia and N1 rockets and the US Saturn V and Space Shuttle were all retired one or several decades ago. Only SpaceX’s own Falcon Heavy rocket, fifth on the bracket and capable of producing up to 2325 tons (5.13 million pounds) of thrust at sea level, is still operational and comes close.
Powered by 33 upgraded Raptor 2 engines that SpaceX says can produce up to 230 tons (~510,000 lbf) each, Super Heavy could have produced up to 3220 tons (7.1 million pounds) of thrust when it ignited 14 of its engines earlier today. That likely means that Starship is now the fourth most powerful rocket ever tested, slotting in above NASA’s Space Shuttle but below the Soviet Energia. And even if all 14 engines never throttled above 73%, SpaceX’s Starship booster likely still produced more thrust than any other active rocket in the world, beating Falcon Heavy. But if NASA has its way, Starship could hold that title for less than 36 hours.
As early as 1:04 am EDT (06:04 UTC) on November 16th, a little over 35 hours after SpaceX’s record-breaking Starship static fire, NASA will attempt to launch its massive Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for the third time since late August. At the explicit request of Congress, which wanted to preserve Shuttle jobs after the end of the program in 2011, SLS essentially shuffles around Space Shuttle parts and replaces the reusable orbiter with a fully-expendable rocket. The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) have been extended and uprated, and the orange External Tank has been stretched and turned into a liquid rocket booster affixed with four RS-25 engines to the Shuttle’s three.
If things go according to plan, those changes mean that SLS rocket will produce up to 3990 tons (8.8 million pounds) of thrust when it lifts off for the first time, overtaking Super Heavy B7 but also making it the second most powerful launch vehicle in history after the Soviet N1. N1 never succeeded, however, so SLS could become the most powerful rocket ever to reach orbit if its first launch is successful.
But just as SLS appears poised to almost immediately unseat Starship’s position as the most powerful active rocket in the world, Starship is poised to beat SLS to become the most powerful rocket ever flown – successfully or not – when it attempts its first orbital launch either next month or early next year. With all 33 Raptors at full throttle, Starship can produce almost 7600 tons (16.7 million pounds) of thrust at liftoff, beating the previous record-holder – the Soviet N1 rocket – by nearly 60%.
Even if that first launch attempt is unsuccessful, SpaceX appears to be preparing for several more rapid-fire launches that will continue until success is achieved, beating SLS’ other (potential) record. SpaceX has demonstrated that ability once before with Starship when it completed five flights of five different prototypes in less than six months. As a result, it’s likely that by the time SLS launches a second time in the mid-2020s, it will be the third most powerful rocket, second to N1 and Starship.
That slightly awkward upset should be lessened by the fact that Starship and SLS are, for the time being, both integral parts of NASA’s Artemis Program. To return astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, SLS and its Orion spacecraft will transport NASA astronauts to lunar orbit, where they’ll board a Starship-derived Moon lander. Starship will then land those astronauts on the lunar surface, support about a week of surface operations, and then return them to lunar orbit, where Orion will transport them back to Earth.
For now, a massive amount of work remains to be done before NASA and SpaceX will be ready to support that crewed Moon landing. But Monday’s Starship static fire and Wednesday’s potential SLS launch both represent significant, tangible steps towards that lofty goal.
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
