News
[Update: Scrubbed] SpaceX Starship to attempt same-day static fire and launch
Update: Starship SN11 did manage a timely static fire around 8am CDT but after hours of work, SpaceX appears to have scrubbed a Friday, March 26th launch attempt.
SpaceX’s website has yet to be updated and Friday’s FAA TFR is still active but a road closure meant to last until 7:30 pm CDT to cover the static fire and launch was retracted after the highway was reopened around 2:45 pm. It’s unclear what caused the scrub but weather or technical issues from the static fire are two likely candidates. SpaceX still has TFRs active on Saturday and Sunday, but the company hasn’t tested or flown on a weekend in months.
Lacking only an official confirmation, SpaceX appears to be readying the fourth full-size Starship prototype to attempt a Raptor static fire test and launch on the same day.
That hopeful day in question happens to be today – Friday, March 26th. If all goes according to plan, Starship serial number SN11 will fire up its three Raptors, verifying their health after an engine was apparently swapped out on Wednesday. Possibly just an hour or two later, after detanking and retanking liquid oxygen and methane propellant, the Starship prototype could lift off on SpaceX’s fourth high-altitude test flight.
Late on March 24th, SpaceX rolled Raptor engine SN46 from its Boca Chica factory to the launch pad, where Starship SN11 is installed on one of two suborbital launch mounts. The engine move and subsequent installation came as a surprise, as nobody managed to catch an implied Starship SN11 engine removal in the two or three days prior (extremely thick fog being the likeliest cause).
The implied issue with the Raptor that was removed is likely to blame for a several-day launch delay that followed Starship’s seemingly successful Monday static fire. After that test, SN11’s launch was initially scheduled as early as Tuesday or Wednesday, only to slip day by day as the week proceeded. SN11 first rolled to the launch pad on March 8th, just 18 days ago, so launch delays don’t come as a huge surprise given that the current factory-to-launch record for a three-engine Starship is 33 days, three static fires, and one engine swap.
If SN11 manages a same-day static fire and launch on March 26th, it will still crush that record by almost 50%. To an extent, the feat also isn’t unprecedented. On March 3rd, Starship SN10 aborted its first true launch attempt milliseconds after Raptor ignition when the rocket’s flight computer detected indications that they were producing too much thrust. Amazingly, instead of scrubbing the launch attempt, SpaceX loosened Starship SN10’s thrust limit parameters and tried again, successfully lifting off just three hours after the abort.
Despite the abort and immediate hands-free recycle, Starship SN10 subsequently became the first prototype of its kind to launch to 10 km (6.2 mi), free-fall back to earth, and land in one piece. Minutes later, a fire and harder landing than expected conspired to make SN10 explode, but the test flight was arguably still a massive success. Simultaneously, the flight indicated that Starships are technically capable of successfully flying hours after a post-ignition launch abort, demonstrating an extraordinary level of robustness for clustered high-performance rocket engines.
As such, while it’s probably reasonable to assume that Starship SN11 wont launch today, SN10 proved that there is nonzero chance of a static fire and launch hours apart. Additionally, given just how close SN10 go to unequivocal success (i.e. a soft and survivable landing), Starship SN11 has the best chance yet at at launching, landing, and making it through the ordeal without exploding.
Starship SN11’s third static fire and first launch attempt are both currently scheduled sometime between 7am and 7:30pm CDT (UTC-5). Stay tuned for updates as we wait for SpaceX’s official confirmation and an evacuation notice of Boca Chica Village residents.
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
