News
SpaceX close to securing FAA license for Starship launch debut
A senior SpaceX director expects the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to grant a license for the first orbital launch of its next-generation Starship rocket in the “very near future.”
Speaking at the 2023 Space Mobility Conference, SpaceX Senior Director of National Security Space Solutions Gary Henry also indicated that Starship remains on track to launch as early as March 2023. Six weeks ago, CEO Elon Musk tweeted that SpaceX had “a real shot at [a] late February” Starship launch, adding that a “March launch attempt [appeared] highly likely.” February is now out of reach. But March may still be a viable target, according to Henry.
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
SpaceX has made significant progress towards Starship’s first orbital launch attempt in early 2023. On January 23rd, Ship 24 and Super Heavy Booster 7 were filled with around 4800 tons (~10.6M lbs) of propellant and completed Starship’s first full wet dress rehearsal, simulating a launch attempt up to the moment before engine ignition.
Two and a half weeks later, SpaceX attempted to ignite all 33 of Booster 7’s Raptor 2 engines. 31 engines ignited as planned, producing 3580 tons (7.9M lbf) of thrust – the most powerful static fire test in the history of rocketry. SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk have been relatively quiet about the test, merely noting that Starship may have still been able to reach orbit if it had lifted off with 31 of 33 engines.
By all appearances, the test was a spectacular success for SpaceX. 94% of Super Heavy’s Raptors ignited on the first attempted 33-engine test. The booster – standing as tall as an entire two-stage Falcon 9 rocket with a payload fairing – then safely drained its tanks. Booster 7 suffered no apparent damage, and SpaceX hasn’t removed or replaced any of its Raptor engines, potentially indicating that all 33 are healthy enough to stay on the booster for Starship’s first orbital launch attempt. That in itself is a major achievement.
On February 21st, SpaceX’s Gary Henry confirmed that Super Heavy Booster 7 and the launch pad that supported its record-breaking static fire test are in “good shape.” Counter to virtually all other large rockets in history, Starship’s first orbital launch pad has no water deluge system, flame trench, or thrust diverter to suppress or redirect the incredible amount of energy the rocket’s engines can produce. Despite that ommittance, the flat concrete directly below the pad appeared to survive almost eight million pounds of thrust and brutal heat with only minor spalling and damage.
The concrete adjacent to the orbital launch mount fared less well, but may eventually be replaced with the same high-temperature Fondag concrete that was added under the mount. If the launch mount and its surroundings are in “good shape” after experiencing about half of Starship’s full thrust, it’s possible that SpaceX will be ready to launch in the near future.
In the meantime, SpaceX is already installing a water deluge system that will eventually make its South Texas Starship launch site much more capable of withstanding the stress of Starship tests and launches. Installing that system and building a sufficiently massive water supply will take months, however, and would likely preclude a March launch attempt, indicating that SpaceX’s first orbital Starship launch attempt will happen without it.
SpaceX has, however, begun installing a final layer of shielding on Starbase’s orbital launch mount. That task will likely need to be completed before the launch attempt and could take a couple weeks.
The strongest sign that Starship’s first orbital launch attempt is imminent will be Ship 24’s return to the pad and reinstallation atop Booster 7, as well as SpaceX’s receipt of an FAA launch license. With testing mostly behind SpaceX, that license to launch may now be the biggest source of uncertainty for Starship’s orbital-class debut. If, as Gary Henry and spaceflight journalist Christian Davenport have indicated, there are no major hurdles standing in the way of that FAA license, Starship could be ready to launch in a matter of weeks.
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
