News
SpaceX Starship prototype charred but intact after catching fire [photos]
SpaceX teams have finally safed the fourth full-scale Starship prototype nearly two days after a Raptor engine test caught it on fire, an anomaly that left the massive rocket charred and damaged – but still intact.
While SN4’s survival is a welcome and unexpected outcome, the fire that broke out near the base of the rocket caused damage that will have to be repaired, while the fault that allowed that fire to occur in the first place will also need to be rectified. Had the same events transpired during the ship’s inaugural flight test, things could have gone even further south after the rocket lifted off, carrying it away from remotely-controlled water jets used to suppress unplanned fires on the pad.
Thankfully, SpaceX’s focus on testing, testing, and testing some more meant that Starship SN4’s minor self-immolation occurred on the ground when the stakes – while high – were much lower than they would have been with an airborne rocket. The problems uncovered will, of course, need to be fixed, inevitably delaying the ship’s first flight test, but odds are that SN4 now has a better shot at success thanks to those hiccups.
Thanks to the fact that Starships are constructed almost entirely out of steel, a little (or a lot of) fire shouldn’t theoretically be much of a problem. However, SpaceX has taken a rather freeform approach to its early Starship SNx prototypes, opting to bolt, weld, or tape on the vast majority of external hardware with little or no protection from the elements, including fires ignited by the ships themselves.
With SN4, it appears that the pressure jump experiences immediately after Raptor ignition (the ship’s third such test) shook some methane-related plumbing loose. Raptor continued to burn for another five or so seconds after that minor failure, shutting down as planned – but not before it ignited the methane the burst pipe was leaking. Additionally, after that new plume of boiling liquid methane caught fire, the fire it sustained proceeded to ignite insulation wrapped around the rocket’s launch. It burned vigorously, likely helping to damage wiring, ultimately causing SpaceX to partially lose control of the rocket and preventing attempts to inspect and fix the damage for two full days.
It’s safe to say that SpaceX is probably going to prioritize avoiding the series of events that caused May 19th’s anomaly from here on out, considering that things could have easily gone much worse. Thankfully, whatever control SpaceX or the rocket itself retained after wire damage allowed it to safely offload its flammable propellant and vent expanding gases to prevent SN4’s tanks from bursting. Installing highly flammable insulation approximately 10 feet away from an active Raptor engine and giant controlled fire and explosion was also inadvisable and probably won’t be repeated.
Thankfully, the damage is clearly minimal and Starship SN4 survived the ordeal otherwise unscathed. With any luck, inspections and repairs will be quick and easy and SpaceX – as NASASpaceflight reporter Michael Baylor notes – will be able to complete an identical static fire test without starting a fire on Starship SN4. SpaceX has requested a new road closure (signifying planned testing) on May 28th with backup windows on May 29th and June 1st.
Thanks to Starship SN4’s unplanned delays, it now looks quite likely that SpaceX’s next full-scale Starship prototype (SN5) will be completed – or nearly so – by the time that its predecessor is cleared for flight. “Too many Starships” is certainly a welcome problem to have.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
