News
SpaceX orbital Starship launch debut officially slips to 2022 – but it’s not all bad news
US government documentation suggests that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aims to complete an environmental review of SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch site no earlier than December 31st, 2021, precluding an orbital launch attempt this year.
In light of the FAA taking until September 2021 to publish the draft of that environmental assessment (EA), a major delay has been the expected outcome for months. The latest development finally makes that delay official, confirming that even in the new best-case scenario, SpaceX will be unable to conduct Starship’s first orbital launch before January 1st, 2022. But while that unfortunate confirmation comes as little surprise, it’s not all bad news.
It’s unclear how accurate the Federal Infrastructure Projects’ “Permitting Dashboard” actually is but the information displayed on the website is specific and detailed enough for it to be deemed trustworthy. If correct, it states that the FAA aims to complete SpaceX’s orbital Starship EA by December 31st. To an extent, that internal estimate relies on the optimistic assumption that the FAA will rule in SpaceX’s favor on the matter and issue either a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
Of course, there’s a chance that the portal’s claim that the FAA will file Starship’s final orbital EA and conclude the EA process on the same day actually implies that the FAA has already ruled out the worst-case scenario (a no action alternative finding), which would be excellent news for SpaceX. In an optimal scenario, the 12/31/21 target means that the FAA could issue a FONSI or mitigated FONSI before the end of 2021. However, even if that’s the case, a highly favorable environmental review is just one part of the process of securing an orbital Starship launch license, which will be the next gating factor for the SpaceX rocket’s full-up launch debut.
Update: In an official email, the FAA says that the final EA it intends to release by December 31st “will include a Finding of No Significant Impact or decision to initiate an Environmental Impact Statement.” It’s unclear if that FONSI includes the possibility of a mitigated FONSI, which would be the optimal compromise scenario. If the FAA pursues an EIS, it would effectively restart the environmental review process from scratch, potentially delaying orbital Starship launches by a year or more.
There is very little public insight into what that launch licensing process involves or how long it usually takes but it’s safe to say that it could take months for the FAA to move from issuing a favorable EA to approving even the most limited possible orbital Starship launch license (a permit for a single flight). Still, there is some reason for optimism. If the FAA actually publishes a final – and favorable – environmental assessment by the end of 2021, less than four months after issuing the first draft EA for orbital Starship launches, it would be an exceptionally quick turnaround for such a large project and review.
Now that SpaceX has completed the first successful six-engine Starship static fire, the company could potentially be technically ready for the first orbital Starship launch as soon as the ship’s Super Heavy booster completes similar testing. That test campaign is even more ambitious than Starship’s and will eventually culminate in the first one or several 29-engine booster static fires, making Super Heavy the most powerful rocket stage ever tested. Plenty of uncertainty remains about the timeline for Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) testing, though.
With a quick burst of progress, both Super Heavy B4 and Starbase’s orbital launch site could feasibly be ready to support testing before the end of November. Before true Super Heavy testing can began, SpaceX will need to close out one or both of the orbital pad’s liquid methane (LCH4) tanks, fill them with several hundred to several thousand tons of LCH4, button up Booster 4’s aft section with six steel ‘aerocovers’, finish reinstalling 29 Raptors, and complete the heat shield that will protect most of those engines during ground testing and in flight. Normally, that would likely be a few-day or few-week process for SpaceX but the company’s unusually slow pace of work as of late could turn it into a several-month ordeal.
With any luck, SpaceX has simply prioritized work on Starbase’s orbital launch site over the last few months and will refocus on preparing Super Heavy B4 and Starship S20 for flight as the FAA’s environmental review and launch licensing processes finally near their end.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form
Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.
Elon Musk predicted that Tesla could become one of the developers of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in humanoid form. Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.
In his post, Musk stated that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.”
The comment comes as Tesla expands development of its Optimus humanoid robot.
During Tesla’s Q4 earnings report, Elon Musk stated that production of the Model S and Model X would be phased out at its Fremont, California, facility. The vehicles’ production line will then be converted to a pilot line for Optimus. Tesla is looking to produce 1 million units of the humanoid robots annually to start.
Musk has previously stated that Optimus could eventually function as a von Neumann probe. The concept, proposed by mathematician John von Neumann, describes a machine capable of replicating itself using planetary resources and sending those replicas to other worlds.
Optimus would likely only be able to achieve this potential if it manages to achieve Artificial General Intelligence.
Other leaders in the AI sector have also expressed strong expectations about AGI’s potential. Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, recently spoke about the technology at the India AI Impact Summit 2026, as noted in a Benzinga report.
“It’s going to be something like ten times the impact of the Industrial Revolution, but happening at ten times the speed,” Hassabis said.
Elon Musk’s recent comments about Tesla producing a product with AGI could hint at further collaboration among his companies. So far, Tesla is actively pursuing autonomous driving, but it is xAI that is pursuing AGI with its Grok program.
Considering that Elon Musk mentioned a Tesla humanoid product with AGI, it appears that an Optimus robot running xAI’s AI models could become a reality.
xAI had recently merged with SpaceX, though reports suggest that Elon Musk is also considering an even bigger merger for all his companies, including Tesla.
News
Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.
The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”
What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.
Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”
The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.
However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.
Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.
Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:
Sad to see so many fans trashing Tesla with such extreme language.
LIARS!!! PATHETIC!!! And if you aren’t as furious and angry as they are they are you’re “worshipping” and saying “they can do no wrong”.
Let’s get real here. They’re not liars. They offered FSD transfer to us… https://t.co/3Ay7vGaVR6
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.
Rather than “calling them out”, I would simply say “Hey Elon, really hoped to be able to do FSD transfer on my cybertruck but the terms changed. Would really appreciate if Tesla could extend this to everyone who ordered before the terms changes”
that would probably work
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) March 3, 2026
In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.
Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.
It’s not a contradiction, it’s a change in policy that Tesla just made an hour ago. I am trying to check if the change is retroactive to all existing orders, including Cybertruck AWD orders, because if it is, that sucks big time.
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) February 28, 2026
The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.
Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report
Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form
