News
SpaceX’s second Starship hop imminent after Raptor static fire test
SpaceX has successfully fired up a new Starship prototype’s Raptor engine, putting the company on track for its second Starship hop test as soon as this week.
The milestone comes not long after SpaceX Starship serial number 6 (SN6) completed its first cryogenic proof, a pressure test with liquid nitrogen (LN2) used to safely verify the structural integrity of tanks (and rockets, in particular). Measuring 9m (30 ft) wide and some 30m (~100 ft) tall, SpaceX rolled Starship SN6 from its Boca Chica, Texas factory to a nearby test and launch facility on August 11th and wrapped up its first acceptance test on August 16th.
Now, just seven days after its cryo proof, SpaceX has installed a new Raptor engine (SN29), prepared SN6 for a much riskier round of tests, and completed a static fire with said engine, leaving just one major step between the Starship and its hop debut. Of course, the process still had its fair share of hiccups.
SpaceX’s first SN6 static fire test window – published by Cameron County in the form of road closure notices – was set for 8 am to 8 pm CDT (UTC-5), August 23rd a few days after the Starship’s cryo proof. The first test attempt began around 9:30 am but was aborted soon after as SpaceX employees returned to the launch pad to (presumably) troubleshoot. The second attempt began around 2:30 pm, leaving a little less than half the test window available.
Attempt #2 very nearly managed to extract a static fire, aborting possibly a second or less before Raptor ignition around 3:41 pm. Once again, SpaceX teams returned to the pad after Starship was detanked and safed, briefly inspecting the general location of the rocket’s Raptor engine before once again clearing the pad around 6:30 pm. At long last, Starship SN6 began a smooth and fast flow that culminated in the ignition of Raptor SN29 around 7:45 pm, just 15 minutes before the end of SpaceX’s test window.
As with all SpaceX static fires, engineers must still analyze the data produced – and possibly inspect pad or rocket hardware – to verify vehicle health before proceeding into launch operations. Unlike all other SpaceX static fires, the company doesn’t announce the results of those tests – nor the solidified launch window – during prototype development programs. In the context of iterative aerospace development, while there may be such a thing as a “good” or “bad” test, all tests – as long as they’re performed safely and produce a large quantity of usable data – are essentially successful.
As such, it’s likely for the best that SpaceX doesn’t put the public focus on the “success” of any given test. Still, it means that unofficial educated guesses are typically the only way to determine the results of any given test and how those results impact the next steps. For SN6, the very broad-strokes conclusions one can draw from unofficial livestreams suggest that the Starship’s first Raptor static fire was a success. Assuming that the unknown cause(s) of the day’s two prior aborts were minor and easily rectified, SpaceX is likely exactly on schedule for Starship SN6’s first hop attempt.
SN6’s first flight is expected to be an almost identical copy of Starship SN5’s highly successful August 4th debut, following the same 150m (~500 ft) parabolic trajectory. Filed before SN6’s August 23rd static fire, SpaceX has penciled in Friday, August 28th for Starship SN6’s own hop debut. Thanks to the fact that SpaceX was able to complete both SN6’s cryo proof and static fire on the first day of their respective test windows, August 28th is likely well within reach. Stay tuned for updates as Starship SN6’s hop debut schedule solidifies.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
