Connect with us

News

SpaceX Starship launch delayed to Tuesday by poor FAA planning

Starship SN10, March 2nd. (SpaceX)

Published

on

Update: CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX’s fourth high-altitude Starship launch has been delayed from Monday to Tuesday after an FAA inspector – recently required to be onsite for launches – was inexplicably more than six hours late.

While the smallest grain of salt is warranted given Musk’s recently vitriolic relationship with the FAA, the CEO has every reason not to lie about a federal regulatory agency that SpaceX almost fundamentally depends on. As such, the implication is that a lone FAA inspector – only recently required by the FAA itself to be onsite for SpaceX Starship launches – was somehow more than four or five hours away from Boca Chica, Texas by 11am CDT, March 29th.

The only possible explanation for such a delay is that a single inspector – lacking virtually any of the resources afforded to large government agency – missed a flight on a public airline, had a flight canceled at the last second, or was somehow stranded in the middle of nowhere by car issues. As any sane human familiar with air or car travel would know, those issues happen and should always be anticipated. Knowing full well that it had just changed SpaceX’s Starship launch license just two weeks prior to prevent flights without an inspector present, the FAA does not appear to have prepared for those issues in even the most basic sense, failing to ensure alternate methods of transport or two redundant inspectors.

In essence, due either to severe underfunding, general ineptitude, some childish attempt to assert dominance, or some combination of all three, the FAA has explicitly disrespected the hundreds of (possibly 1000+) SpaceX employees working around the clock for weeks to launch Starship SN11 as quickly as possible. Given that the FAA itself distributed Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) for SN11’s Monday launch on Saturday and noted plans for the launch more than a day prior, the giant regulatory agency had no less than 24-48 hours of prior warning even if they’d somehow ignored or missed SpaceX’s own CEO announcing a delay to March 29th on March 26th.

If a regulatory agency like the FAA is incapable of ensuring that an inspector can stand around at a launch the agency itself required an inspector be present for days prior, the same apparatus assuredly should not and cannot be trusted to regulate systems as complex as modern aircraft, spacecraft, and rockets. If the FAA is, in fact, up to the challenge of responsibly regulating those systems with the public’s best interest in mind, then failing a task as simple as ensuring its own inspector is transported, on time, from Point A to Point B is a conscious decision or mistake. Either way, something clearly needs to change.

Advertisement

CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX has delayed Starship serial number 11’s (SN11) high-altitude launch debut from Friday to Monday to best ensure that the company can “land & fully recover” the 50-meter-tall steel rocket.

First and foremost, the weekend will allow SpaceX times time for “additional checkouts” and scour Starship SN11 and the data it’s produced during testing for any red flags or minor issues. While plans for a same-day static fire and launch didn’t pan out on Friday, March 26th, SpaceX did manage the first half, firing up just one of Starship’s three Raptors to verify the health of the replacement engine after a Thursday Raptor swap. The test marked the first time SpaceX has intentionally fired up just one of the Raptors installed on a three-engine Starship prototype, so the delay will provide extra time to ensure that all three are still looking good.

The weather in Boca Chica, Texas has also taken a turn for the worse in the last few days, so the extra few days will also (hopefully) allow time for wind, visibility, and precipitation conditions to improve. According to Musk, Starship SN11 is now scheduled to fly as early as Monday “afternoon” and, as usual, SpaceX will offer live coverage of the fourth high-altitude launch and landing attempt beginning a few minutes before liftoff.

With a little luck, the Starship prototype will be able to continue a trend of iterative improvement and one-up Starship SN10 with a slightly softer landing and no explosion minutes after touchdown. Stay tuned for updates both here and on SpaceX’s social media platforms to catch the official webcast.

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

Elon Musk

SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke

Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.

Published

on

By

SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.

Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.

SpaceX comes with a slew of changes for Starship Flight 13

 

The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.

Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.

SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.

Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.

Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.

APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.

The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.

The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.

Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

on

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.

The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.

Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:

“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”

The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:

“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”

Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.

Continue Reading