News
SpaceX’s first orbital Starship launch “highly likely” in November, says Elon Musk
CEO Elon Musk says that it’s “highly likely” SpaceX will be ready to attempt its first orbital Starship launch in November 2022, and possibly as early as late October. But many major hurdles remain.
Adding to a welcome burst of insight into SpaceX’s fully-reusable Starship rocket program, Musk took to Twitter on September 21st to provide a bit more specific insight into the company’s next steps towards a crucial orbital launch debut. On September 19th, the CEO revealed that SpaceX would roll the Starship booster (B7) currently assigned to that debut back to the factory for mysterious “robustness upgrades” – an unexpected move right after a seemingly successful and record-breaking static fire test.
Two days later, Musk has indicated that those upgrades might involve fortifying Super Heavy Booster 7’s thrust section to ensure it can survive Raptor engine failures. With 33 Raptor V2 engines powering it and plenty of evidence that those Raptors are far from perfect reliability, the concern is understandable, even if the response is a bit different than SpaceX’s norm.
Prior to the start of preparations for Starship’s orbital launch debut, SpaceX sped through Starship development like it wanted to destroy as many rockets as possible – which, to some extent, it did. Rather than spend 6-12 months fiddling with the same few prototypes without a single launch attempt, SpaceX churned out Starships and test articles and aggressively tested them. A few times, SpaceX pushed a little too hard and made avoidable mistakes, but most of the failures produced large amounts of data that was then used to improve future vehicles.
The holy grail of that project was high-altitude Starship flight testing, which saw SpaceX finish, test, and launch a new Starship five times in six months, and culminated in the first fully successful high-altitude Starship launch and landing in May 2021.
In comparison, SpaceX’s orbital flight test preparations have been almost unrecognizable. While a good amount of progress has been made in the 16 months since SN15’s successful launch and landing, it’s clear that SpaceX has decided against taking significant risks. After spending more than six months slowly finishing and testing Super Heavy Booster 4 and Starship 20, the first orbital-class pair, SpaceX never even attempted a single Booster 4 static fire and unceremoniously retired both prototypes without attempting to fly either.
Without info from Musk or SpaceX, we may never know why SpaceX stood down B4 and S20, or why the company appears to have revised its development approach to be a bit more conservative after clearly demonstrating the efficacy of moving fast and taking big risks. It’s possible that winning a $3 billion contract that places Starship front and center in NASA’s attempt to return astronauts to the Moon has encouraged a more careful approach. SpaceX won that contract in April 2021.
Even in its more cautious third phase, Starship development is still extraordinarily hardware-rich, moving quickly, and uncovering many problems on the ground in lieu of learning from flight tests. But that doesn’t change the fact that the third phase of Starship development (H2 2021 – today) is proceeding more carefully than the first (Q4 2018 to Q4 2019) and second (Q1 2020 – Q2 2021) phases.
Nonetheless, SpaceX appears to finally be getting closer to Starship’s first orbital launch. According to Musk, the company could be ready for the first launch attempt as early as late October, but a November attempt is “highly likely.” He believes that SpaceX will have two pairs of orbital-class Starships and Super Heavy boosters (B7/S24; B8/S25) “ready for orbital flight by then,” potentially enabling a rapid return to flight after the first attempt. Musk is also excited about Super Heavy Booster 9, which has “many design changes” and a thrust section that will fully isolate all 33 Raptors from each other – crucial for preventing the failure of one engine from damaging others.
Meanwhile, as Musk forecasted, Super Heavy Booster 8 rolled to the launch pad on September 19th and will likely be proof tested in the near future while Booster 7 is upgraded back at the factory.
Encouraging as that may be, history has shown that reality – particularly when it involves Starship’s orbital launch debut – can be quite a bit different than the pictures Elon Musk paints. In September 2021, for example, Musk predicted that SpaceX would conduct the first Super Heavy static fire at Starbase’s orbital launch pad later that month. In reality, that crucial test occurred 11 months later (August 9th, 2022) and used an entirely different booster.
This is to say that significant progress has been made in the last few months, but SpaceX has a huge amount of work left, almost all of which lies in uncharted terrain. Starship 24, which completed its first six-engine static fire earlier this month, is currently undergoing strange modifications that seem to imply that the upper stage is not living up to SpaceX’s expectations. It’s unclear if additional testing will be required.
Super Heavy B7 is headed back to the factory for additional work after a successful seven-Raptor static fire. Once it returns to the pad, the sequencing isn’t clear, but SpaceX will need to complete the first full Super Heavy wet dress rehearsal (fully loading the booster with thousands of tons of flammable propellant) and the first full 33-Raptor static fire. It remains to be seen if SpaceX will continue its conservative approach (i.e. testing one, three, and seven engines over six weeks) or jump straight from seven- to 33-engine testing.
It’s also unclear where Ship 24 fits into that picture. SpaceX will eventually need to (or should) conduct a full wet dress rehearsal of the fully stacked Starship and may even want to attempt a 33-engine static fire with that fully-fueled two-stage vehicle to truly test the rocket under the same conditions it will launch under. Will SpaceX fully stack B7 and S24 as soon as the booster returns to the pad, risking a potentially flightworthy Starship during the riskiest Super Heavy tests yet?
SpaceX’s last year of activity suggests that the company will choose caution and conduct wet dress rehearsals and 33-engine static fires before and after stacking, potentially doubling the amount of testing required. One or several more tests will also be required if SpaceX decides to gradually build up to 33 engines, which is the approach that all Booster 7 activity to date suggests SpaceX will take.
Either way, it will be a major challenge for SpaceX to have a fully-stacked Starship ready to launch by the end of November. If any significant problems arise during any of the several unprecedented tests described above, Musk’s predicted schedule will likely become impossible. As a wildcard, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has yet to issue SpaceX a license or experimental permit for orbital Starship launches, either of which is contingent upon dozens of “mitigations.”
This isn’t to say that it’s impossible for an orbital Starship launch attempt to occur in November. But factoring in the many issues Booster 7 and Ship 24 have experienced during much simpler tests, it’s becoming increasingly implausible that SpaceX will be ready to launch the pair before the end of 2022. Stay tuned.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
