News
SpaceX Starship factory aiming to build five megarockets in 2023
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX’s South Texas Starship aims to build up to five of the two-stage megarockets in 2023.
SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas hardware endeavors began in an empty field in late 2018, kicking off Starhopper testing in 2019. In late 2019 and early 2020, the company began building the bones of the factory that exists today, relying heavily on several giant tents (“sprung structures”) similar to those used by Tesla. SpaceX has already begun the process of replacing those tents with larger, permanent buildings, but two of the original tents continue to host crucial parts of the Starship manufacturing process.
In terms of useful output, that manufacturing slowed down a bit in 2022. That slowdown can likely be partially explained by the need to move equipment and processes into the first finished section of Starfactory. But in general, SpaceX was simply focused on finishing and testing Starship S24 and Super Heavy B7 – both stages of the latest vehicle meant to attempt Starship’s first orbital launch.
Only by late 2022 did Ship 24 more or less complete proof testing, and Booster 7 is still several major tests away from solidifying full confidence in its design. SpaceX has only conducted limited testing with fully-stacked Starships, further reducing the amount of confidence the company can have in the assembled rocket. Lacking the data needed to know with certainty whether the tweaked designs of Starship and Super Heavy are good enough for several orbital test flights, it’s thus unsurprising that SpaceX only produced a handful of usable ships and boosters in 2022.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
But if CEO Elon Musk’s forecast is correct, the company has plans to increase Starbase’s useful output in 2023. According to Musk, SpaceX aims to build “about five full stacks” this year, translating to five flightworthy Starships and five Super Heavy boosters.
In 2022, SpaceX finished Booster 7 and built Booster 8, Booster 9, and most of Booster 10. Booster 8 was almost immediately relegated to the retirement yard. Booster 9, featuring some significant design changes, completed a limited amount of proof testing and returned to the factory in early January – likely for Raptor engine installation. The fate of Booster 10 is unclear, but it stands as a prime example of how fast SpaceX can actually build massive Starship hardware when conditions are right. SpaceX began stacking B10 in late October 2022 and the vehicle is just two stacks away from full height three months later.
In the same period, SpaceX finished and immediately retired Starship S22, finished and began testing Ship 24, finished and began testing Ship 25, and finished stacking Ship 26. Booster 9’s upgrades partially insulate it from the most disappointing possible scenario, retirement before flight. Even if Booster 7 fails during prelaunch testing or its launch attempt, revealing major design flaws, it’s possible that Booster 9’s changes have already addressed those weaknesses, allowing it to continue the flight test campaign. Ship 25’s fate is even more dependent on the fate of Ship 24.
In 2022, SpaceX ultimately produced two “full stacks,” with a third (S26/B10) likely to be completed – albeit with a less certain fate – in early 2023. Delivering five full stacks this year – meaning five ships and five boosters that make it far enough to be paired with another and fully stacked – would be a major improvement. However, as was the case in 2022, higher-volume production will remain a risky proposition until the designs of the vehicles being built have been fully qualified.
Given how long it’s taken SpaceX to partially qualify Super Heavy Booster 7, it appears that the largest source of uncertainty will remain for at least another month or two, if not well into mid-2023. Starship production has many uncertainties of its own, and all of them are complicated by not knowing if a Super Heavy booster will be available to launch each new ship in a timely fashion.
Ultimately, an entirely different constraint means that “five full stacks” may be all SpaceX needs to build for the next 12+ months. After a long and painful process, the FAA completed an environmental review of SpaceX’s Starbase, Texas facilities, permitting a maximum of five orbital (full-stack) Starship launches per year. Starship’s FAA orbital launch license, which has yet to be granted, could be even more restrictive. A second Starship pad under construction in Florida is unlikely to be cleared for orbital launches until Starship has proven itself to be moderately safe in South Texas, which could easily take 12-18 months, if not longer.
Combined with the fact that no super-heavy-lift rocket in history has flown five times in its first year of launch activity, a trend Starship seems unlikely to break, SpaceX could practically halt production entirely in 2023 and still have a full year of testing ahead of it while only using Ships 24-26 and Boosters 7, 9, and 10. Unintuitively, that bodes well for a busy 2023 of Starship test flights, as much of the hardware required for three flight tests is already close to completion or almost ready to begin preflight testing.
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
