News
SpaceX’s high-altitude Starship launch debut unlikely before Crew-1
Update: SpaceX canceled its November 5th and 6th Starship SN8 static fire test windows on Thursday, delaying the next Starship test window to November 9th unless additional testing is scheduled on the 7th and 8th.
As previously discussed, SpaceX requested three road closures for “Starship SN8 Static Fire and 15KM Flight” attempts on November 9th, 10th, and 11th on Wednesday. With recent cancellations, NASASpaceflight reporter Michael Baylor says that the odds that Starship SN8 will be ready to fly before SpaceX’s Crew-1 operational NASA astronaut launch debut (NET November 14th) are now minuscule, further indicating that each of the three upcoming test windows will be dedicated to one or more Raptor static fires.
Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX continues to prepare Starship for its most ambitious, challenging, and risky test yet.
In the form of road closure filings, SpaceX has effectively announced the first possible dates for Starship’s high-altitude launch debut, a high-risk test that CEO Elon Musk recently made clear could fail.
Per road closures published on SpaceX’s dedicated Cameron County, Texas page, Starship serial number 8 (SN8) could apparently be ready for its historic launch debut as soon as November 9th in a 12-hour window that opens at 9am CST (15:00 UTC). Identical 9am-9pm windows on November 10th and 11th will serve as backups in the event of one or several launch aborts or delays – fairly likely for a prototype as complex as Starship SN8.
However, several tests stand between SN8 and flight-readiness, further increasing the odds of delays as SpaceX continues to work out the kinks in what amounts to the first fully-assembly, functional Starship.
Musk has already stated that Starship SN8 will need to complete another Raptor static fire test – potentially with one, two, or three engines – before SpaceX will consider the rocket ready for its flight debut. Over the last few days, NASASpaceflight.com reporter Michael Baylor has noted on livestreams that multiple more static fire tests are actually in order before SpaceX will attempt to launch Starship SN8. It’s currently unclear what the purpose of those additional static fire tests is, given that SN8 has already completed a triple-engine Raptor static fire.
In the two weeks since that milestone, however, SpaceX did take a major step forward, mating Starship SN8’s nose section to create what is effectively the first full-scale, functional prototype. Aside from two smaller forward flaps and attitude control system (ACS) cold gas thrusters, that nose section also contains a small secondary liquid oxygen tank known as a header tank – meant to store a small amount of highly pressurized propellant to be used during Raptor reentry and landing burns. Several months back, Musk revealed that Starship SN4 completed a static fire while only feeding on fuel (liquid methane) stored in the rocket’s methane header tank, making it reasonable to assume that SpaceX wants to repeat a similar test with SN8 while using both fuel and oxidizer header tanks.
For Starship SN8, those header tanks will be an irreplaceable necessity during the rocket’s first attempted launch, free-fall, flip maneuver, and landing. In a clear sign of preparation for a header-tank-only static fire test, SpaceX appeared to successfully complete a cryogenic proof of Starship SN8’s newly-installed nose section and nose (LOx) header tank on November 3rd, verifying that liquid nitrogen – standing in for LOx – can be pumped more than 50 meters (~165 ft) from Starship’s launch mount to the tip of its nose to load said tank.
SpaceX has one more “SN8 nose cone cryo proof” test window scheduled from 8am to 5pm CST Thursday, November 5th that could be used for one or more of those expected static fire tests. Otherwise, SpaceX’s Starship SN18 15 km (~50,000 ft) launch closures were technically filed for an “SN8 Static Fire and 15 KM Flight,” allowing SpaceX to perform one or several static fires before attempting to launch. All things considered, the odds that Starship SN8 will launch on time between November 9th and 11th are probably less than 50:50, but there is definitely a chance.
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
