News
SpaceX Starship aborts Raptor engine test, briefly catches fire
Update: On March 15th, SpaceX got within milliseconds of Starship serial number 11’s (SN11) first Raptor engine test but suffered an abort just before full ignition, briefly leaving the rocket on fire.
Around 12:26 pm CDT, after an otherwise nominal static fire flow, Starship SN11 momentarily ignited one or two of its three Raptor engines’ preburners, referring to a central component that burns cryogenic liquid propellant into gas that’s ready for combustion. As with all preburner tests, intentional or otherwise, the end result looked a bit like a weak static fire and produced a small but visible amount of flame and thrust. Unlike intentional preburner tests, the static fire abort seemingly ignited something hidden inside Starship SN11’s and appeared to burn for at least another 30-40 seconds.
Raptor has proven itself to be an extremely durable engine, up to and including surviving visible onboard fires during actual Starship flight tests. Nevertheless, depending on the source of SN11’s post-abort fire and what it may or may not have burned or damaged, it’s no surprise that SpaceX ended testing for the day instead of quickly trying again, which it’s done several times prior. If the fire was largely harmless, SpaceX has already distributed notices suggesting a second attempt could happen as early as 6am to 12pm CDT (UTC-5) on Tuesday, March 16th. If more time is needed, SpaceX has the rest of the week to conduct any necessary repairs or swap out SN11’s Raptor engines.
Public documents show that SpaceX has plans to static fire and launch its latest Starship prototype within a two-day period that could begin later today.
SpaceX shipped Starship SN11 from its Boca Chica, Texas rocket factory to test and launch facilities a mile down the road on March 8th, less than five days after Starship SN10 exploded minutes after touchdown. The very next day, SpaceX completed ambient-temperature proof testing, filling Starship with benign nitrogen gas to check for leaks and verify system health. Two days after that, Starship SN11 appeared to complete a several-hour cryogenic proof test – swapping nitrogen gas for its supercool liquid form – without issue.
Despite the seemingly successful ‘cryo proof,’ something prevented a subsequent static fire test planned on March 12th before any attempt could be made, delaying the next attempt until after the approaching weekend. An agreement between SpaceX, Cameron County, and the state of Texas currently prevents road closures (and thus rocket testing) on weekends falling between Labor Day and Memorial Day, rules meant to preserve some level of public access to Boca Chica Beach.
As a result, unless SpaceX is already ready to launch (it has waivers for three such weekend closures for launch attempts), the company has to wait until Monday even if a minor issue fixable in hours or a day or so scrubs Friday test plans. While inconvenient, it’s worth noting that the existence of that public beach and the strong regulations that protect its public domain is likely one of the only reasons the general public can still get as close as they can to SpaceX’s Boca Chica ‘Starbase’.
For whatever reason, that road closure agreement does still mean that SpaceX will (in theory) be able to test and launch any day of the week from May 31st to September 6th, save for a few holidays, effectively boosting the number of opportunities by 40% for those 14 weeks. Until then, SpaceX is doing everything it can to take full advantage of the five days a week it is allowed to test Starship prototypes. N
Notably, although Starships SN8 and SN9 both hit a few weeks of technical and regulatory snags while preparing for their high-altitude launch attempts, SpaceX has been gradually speeding up that process over time. Starship SN10, the first prototype of its kind to land in one piece, took just 33 days to go from pad arrival to liftoff and spent just 8 days between its first static fire and launch attempts. The same feats took Starship SN8 77 and 50 days, respectively, with SN9 splitting the difference at 43 days from transport to liftoff and 28 days between its first static fire and launch attempts.
Road closure requests, a safety warning for residents, and a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) filed with the FAA all suggest that SpaceX’s current plan is to attempt Starship SN11’s first triple-Raptor static fire between 6am and 12pm CDT on Monday, March 15th. If that test goes almost perfectly, SpaceX wants to turn the rocket around for a 10 km (6.2 mi) launch attempt on Tuesday, March 16th – the very next day. Given the past performance of high-altitude Starship prototypes, that target is decidedly ambitious and likely to incur delays, but it still reveals the true scope of SpaceX’s goals even at this early stage of development.
If Starship SN11 does manage to launch within a few days of its first static fire attempt, SpaceX would still crush SN10’s 33-day record by a factor of three. Stay tuned for updates on Monday’s possible Starship static fire and rapid Tuesday turnaround attempt
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.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
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.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
