News
SpaceX aces Starship static fire days after NASA astronaut visit
Update: Around 9am CDT (UTC-5), SpaceX successfully fired up Starship serial number 11’s (SN11) three Raptor engines, completing the static fire test on the first try of the day and just two hours into in Monday’s eight-hour window.
As far as three-engine Starship static fires go, SN11’s Monday test was about as smooth and clean as they come, boding extremely well for a launch attempt as early as either Tuesday or Wednesday, according to Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) filed with the FAA. With flight termination system (FTS) explosive charges already installed and an FAA license in hand, all that stands between Starship SN11 and flight is a deeper static fire review and the cooperation of local weather conditions. Stay tuned for updates!
A group of NASA astronauts appear to have taken an agency-sanctioned trip down to SpaceX’s Boca Chica Starship facilities, including a visit with a prototype scheduled to fire up and launch as early as this week.
Seemingly in lockstep with the accelerating pace of Starship production and testing, the frequency of NASA astronaut visits to SpaceX’s South Texas facilities has also seen an uptick over the last six or so months.
Back in 2019, SpaceX built Starhopper, performed numerous tests with early Raptor engine prototypes, and performed two untethered hops. With that success in hand, SpaceX turned its focus to Starship Mk1 and suffered an almost immediate failure during pressure testing, encouraging a series of rapid manufacturing upgrades largely completed in just a few months’ time.
In 2020, SpaceX pushed those new facilities to the limits while continuing major expansions. In 12 months, SpaceX built and tested five small ‘test tanks’ and six full Starship tank sections, performed almost a dozen Raptor static fires with that hardware, hopped two of those tanks (SN5 & SN6) to 150m, fully integrated the first full-height Starship (SN8), and nearly landed that vehicle after an otherwise flawless 12.5 km (7.8 mi) launch and descent.
Back in 2019, NASA inked its first monetary Starship contract with SpaceX, awarding $3M to prototype a coupling mechanism Starships will need to dock and refuel in space. In April 2020, NASA revealed that SpaceX – with its Starship launch vehicle – was one of three finalists selected to compete for a Human Landing System (HLS) Moon lander contract, providing the company $135M of the full $970M award to begin preliminary design and certification work.
Around five months later, a group of NASA astronauts made their first public visit to SpaceX’s Starship development hub in South Texas, overflying the factory and launch pad in training jets on a routine sortie out of Houston and Johnson Space Center. Days later, SpaceX won a $53M NASA “Tipping Point” contract to demonstrate large-scale cryogenic propellant transfer with a Starship prototype.
Ultimately, excluding rock-solid commercial crew and cargo partnerships, NASA’s relationship with SpaceX and the company’s Starship appears to be growing stronger every day. While it’s hard to say just how indicative of that growth the visible attention of NASA’s astronaut corps is, it’s worth taking note of what those same astronauts aren’t (publicly) overflying, visiting, and touring – namely factories, R&D facilities, or prototype hardware of HLS competitors Dynetics and Blue Origin.
Delayed by about a week, SpaceX is currently preparing to fire up its fourth full-size Starship prototype – SN11 – for the first time as early as Monday, March 22nd, 19 days after Starship SN10 briefly landed in one piece. SpaceX has filed temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) with the FAA for SN11’s 10 km (6.2 mi) launch debut from Tuesday through Friday, leaving plenty of opportunities for a launch this week if the rocket can successfully test its three Raptor engines by Wednesday.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
