Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut could still happen this year

A senior SpaceX engineer and executive believes that Starship's first orbital launch could still happen by the end of 2020. (SpaceX)

Published

on

Despite the spectacular demise of a full-scale prototype just days ago, a senior SpaceX engineer and executive believes that Starship could still be ready for its first orbital launch attempt before the end of the year.

Even if the first launch attempt fails, that milestone – if realized – would be one of the single biggest upsets in the history of spaceflight, proving that Saturn V-scale orbital-class rockets can likely be built in spartan facilities with common materials for pennies on the dollar. Much like Falcon 1 suffered three launch failures before successfully reaching orbit, there’s a strong chance that Starship’s first shot at orbit will fall short, although each full-up launch failure would likely cost substantially more than the current prototypes being routinely tested to destruction in South Texas.

Most recently, what CEO Elon Musk later described as a “a minor test of a quick disconnect” went wrong in a spectacular fashion, causing a major liquid methane leak that subsequently ignited and created a massive explosion. Although Starship SN4 did technically complete its fifth Raptor engine static fire test just a minute or so prior, the ship and its immediate surroundings were obliterated by the violent explosion, leaving little more than steel shrapnel and the broken husk of a launch mount behind. It’s in this context that one of SpaceX’s most levelheaded, expert executives believes that an orbital launch could still happen this year.

A senior SpaceX engineer and executive believes that Starship’s first orbital launch could still happen by the end of 2020. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

While Starship SN4’s demise and the continued possibility of the ship’s orbital launch debut occurring less than seven months from now may seem at odds with each other, that’s actually just a side effect of the approach SpaceX has always taken when developing brand new rockets and spacecraft. Following the lead of the scrappy teams that used the exact same methods to design, test, and fly the massive Saturn rockets that took humans to the Moon, SpaceX has always preferred to learn by doing.

Inevitably, testing minimum viable products to their limits will lead to failures, but those failures are actually extremely valuable so long as they are extensively analyzed and learned from. That’s exactly what SpaceX has been doing for the last six or so months with full-scale Starship prototypes: building, testing, failing, and improving in an unending cycle. Built slowly with inferior methods, Starship Mk1 almost immediately during its first pressure test in November 2019. SpaceX took that failure, extracted all the insight it could, and dramatically improved its production methods before completing Starship SN1 barely three months later.

Advertisement
On November 20th, 2019 Starship Mk1 burst during its first major cryogenic pressure test. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
In January, SpaceX built and tested two ‘test tanks’ to failure. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Starship SN01 failed on February 28th because of a faulty ‘thrust puck’, later rectified with a third test tank that became the first to survive pressure testing just 10 days later.(NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Starship SN3 was destroyed by an improper test procedure on April 3rd. (LabPadre)
Starship SN4 marked the most recent failure during SpaceX’s hardware-rich development program.

Prior to SN1, SpaceX built and tested two stout test tanks to failure, ultimately achieving pressures of ~8.5 bar – sufficient for reliable human spaceflight – with the second tank on January 30th, 2020. On February 28th, Starship SN1 was unfortunately destroyed by a faulty ‘thrust puck’ (Raptor engine mount). Just 10 days later, SpaceX successfully tested a third ad-hoc test tank, proving that it had already rectified the engine section design flaw. Hardware isn’t always the only problem, however, and Starship SN3 was destroyed by human operator error during a cryogenic proof test on April 3rd.

Starship SN4 was completed and moved to the launch pad less than a month later and began testing just a few days after that, quickly racking up milestones as it became the first full-scale prototype to pass cryogenic proof testing, perform a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with real propellant, fire up a Raptor engine, and complete a more ambitious cryogenic pressure test. Prior to the ground systems fuel leak that killed it, SN4 was possibly just days away from attempting the inaugural flight of a full-scale Starship prototype.

With Starship SN4 now steel confetti, Starship SN5 – effectively complete – will likely take over where its predecessor left off, heading to the launch pad within the next week or so before attempting a cryogenic pressure test and Raptor static fire to clear it for flight. Per Koenigsmann, that flight debut could come just a few weeks from now – likely before the end of June if replacement ground equipment can be quickly completed. If Starship SN5 survives that hop debut, it may ultimately be upgraded with a nosecone, flaps, and two additional Raptor engines to perform a dramatic 20 km (~12 mi) flight, capped with a supersonic skydiver-style reentry and landing test.

Once that capability has been successfully demonstrated, Super Heavy development and orbital Starship operation and reentry are the next critical hurdles. If Koenigsmann is correct, it’s safe to say that the first fully heat-shielded Starships and the beginnings of the first one or several Super Heavy booster prototypes will begin to appear in South Texas within the next few months.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 might be the most confusing release ever

With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.2.5 hit my car back on Valentine’s Day, February 14, and since I’ve had it, it has become, in my opinion, the most confusing release I’ve ever had.

With each Full Self-Driving release, I am realistic. I know some things are going to get better, and I know some things will regress slightly. However, these instances of improvements are relatively mild, as are the regressions. Yet, this version has shown me that it contains extremes of both.

It has been about three weeks of driving on v14.2.2.5; I’ve used it for nearly every mile traveled since it hit my car. I’ve taken short trips of 10 minutes or less, I’ve taken medium trips of an hour or less, and I’ve taken longer trips that are over 100 miles per leg and are over two hours of driving time one way.

These are my thoughts on it thus far:

Speed Profiles Are a Mixed Bag

Speed Profiles are something Tesla seems to tinker with quite frequently, and each version tends to show a drastic difference in how each one behaves compared to the previous version.

I do a vast majority of my FSD travel using Standard and Hurry modes, although in bad weather, I will scale it back to Chill, and when it’s a congested city on a weekend or during rush hour, I’ll throw it into Mad Max so it takes what it needs.

Early on, Speed Profiles really felt great. This is one of those really subjective parts of the FSD where someone might think one mode travels too quickly, whereas another person might see the identical performance as too slow or just right.

To me, I would like to see more consistency from release to release on them, but overall, things are pretty good. There are no real complaints on my end, as I had with previous releases.

In a past release, Mad Max traveled under the speed limit quite frequently, and I only had that experience because Hurry was acting the same way. I’ve had no instances of that with v14.2.2.5.

Strange Turn Signal Behavior

This is the first Full Self-Driving version where I’ve had so many weird things happen with the turn signals.

Two things come to mind: Using a turn signal on a sharp turn, and ignoring the navigation while putting the wrong turn signal on. I’ve encountered both things on v14.2.2.5.

On my way to the Supercharger, I take a road that has one semi-sharp right-hand turn with a driveway entrance right at the beginning of the turn.

Only recently, with the introduction of v14.2.2.5, have I had FSD put on the right turn signal when going around this turn. It’s obviously a minor issue, but it still happens, and it’s not standard practice:

When sharing this on X, I had Tesla fans (the ones who refuse to acknowledge that the company can make mistakes) tell me that it’s a “valid” behavior that would be taught to anyone who has been “professionally trained” to drive.

Apparently, if you complain about this turn signal, you are also claiming you know more than Tesla engineers…okay.

Nobody in their right mind has ever gone around a sharp turn when driving their car and put on a signal when continuing on the same road. You would put a left turn signal on to indicate you were turning into that driveway if that’s what your intention was.

Like I said, it’s a totally minor issue. However, it’s not really needed, and nor is it normal. If I were in the car with someone who was taking a simple turn on a road they were traveling, and they signaled because the turn was sharp, I’d be scratching my head.

I’ve also had three separate instances of the car completely ignoring the navigation and putting on a signal that is opposite to what the routing says. Really quite strange.

Parking Performance is Still Underwhelming

Parking has been a complaint of mine with FSD for a long time, so much so that it is pretty rare that I allow the vehicle to park itself. More often than not, it is because I want to pick a spot that is relatively isolated.

However, in the times I allow it to pull into a spot, it still does some pretty head-scratching things.

Recently, it tried to back into a spot that was ~60% covered in plowed snow. The snow was piled about six feet high in a Target parking lot.

Tesla ends Full Self-Driving purchase option in the U.S.

A few days later, it tried backing into a spot where someone failed the universal litmus test of returning their shopping cart. Both choices were baffling and required me to manually move the car to a different portion of the lot.

I used Autopark on both occasions, and it did a great job of getting into the spot. I notice that the parking performance when I manually choose the spot is much better than when the car does the entire parking process, meaning choosing the spot and parking in it.

It’s Doing Things (For Me) It’s Never Done Before

Two things that FSD has never done before, at least for me, are slow down in School Zones and avoid deer. The first is something I usually take over manually, and the second I surprisingly have not had to deal with yet.

I had my Tesla slow down at a school zone yesterday for the first time, traveling at 20 MPH and not 15 MPH as the sign suggested, but at the speed of other cars in the School Zone. This was impressive and the first time I experienced it.

I would like to see this more consistently, and I think School Zones should be one of those areas where, no matter what, FSD will only travel the speed limit.

Last night, FSD v14.2.2.5 recognized a deer in a roadside field and slowed down for it:

Navigation Still SUCKS

Navigation will be a complaint until Tesla proves it can fix it. For now, it’s just terrible.

It still has not figured out how to leave my neighborhood. I give it the opportunity to prove me wrong each time I leave my house, and it just can’t do it.

It always tries to go out of the primary entrance/exit of the neighborhood when the route needs to take me left, even though that exit is a right turn only. I always leave a voice prompt for Tesla about it.

It still picks incredibly baffling routes for simple navigation. It’s the one thing I still really want Tesla to fix.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla gets tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm on self-driving prowess

“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet,” BoA wrote.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla received a tip of the hat from major Wall Street firm Bank of America on Wednesday, as it reinitiated coverage on Tesla shares with a bullish stance that comes with a ‘Buy’ rating and a $460 price target.

In a new note that marks a sharp reversal from its neutral position earlier in 2025, the bank declared Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology the “leading consumer autonomy solution.”

Analysts highlighted Tesla’s camera-only architecture, known as Tesla Vision, as a strategic masterstroke. While technically more challenging than the multi-sensor setups favored by rivals, the vision-based approach is dramatically cheaper to produce and maintain.

This cost edge, combined with Tesla’s rapidly expanding real-world data engine, positions the company to scale robotaxis far more profitably than competitors, BofA argues in the new note:

“Tesla is at the forefront of autonomous driving, supported by a camera-only approach that is technically harder but much cheaper than the multi-sensor systems widely used in the industry. This strategy should allow Tesla to scale more profitably compared to Robotaxi competitors, helped by a growing data engine from its existing fleet.”

The bank now attributes roughly 52% of Tesla’s total valuation to its Robotaxi ambitions. It also flagged meaningful upside from the Optimus humanoid robot program and the fast-growing energy storage business, suggesting the auto segment’s recent headwinds, including expired incentives, are being eclipsed by these higher-margin opportunities.

Tesla’s own data underscores exactly why Wall Street is waking up to FSD’s potential. According to Tesla’s official safety reporting page, the FSD Supervised fleet has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles driven.

Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles

That total ballooned from just 6 million miles in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and a staggering 4.25 billion in 2025 alone. In the first 50 days of 2026, owners added another 1 billion miles — averaging more than 20 million miles per day.

This avalanche of real-world, camera-captured footage, much of it on complex city streets, gives Tesla an unmatched training dataset. Every mile feeds its neural networks, accelerating improvement cycles that lidar-dependent rivals simply cannot match at scale.

Tesla owners themselves will tell you the suite gets better with every release, bringing new features and improvements to its self-driving project.

The $460 target implies roughly 15 percent upside from recent trading levels around $400. While regulatory and safety hurdles remain, BofA’s endorsement signals growing institutional conviction that Tesla’s data advantage is not hype; it’s a tangible moat already delivering billions of miles of proof.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report

Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Published

on

Tesla-Chips-HW3-1
Credit: Tom Cross

Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics. 

As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.

Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.

Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).

Advertisement

Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.

The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.

The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.

Advertisement

Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.

Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.

Continue Reading