News
SpaceX returns Starship booster to factory after two major Raptor tests
For the sixth time this year, SpaceX has returned the same Super Heavy booster prototype to its South Texas Starship factory after completing several tests.
Why is unclear. Super Heavy Booster 7 left the factory for the first time in March 2022 and has been stuck in a seemingly continuous state of testing, rework, and retesting ever since. While the pace of testing and progress was in many ways more aggressive from 2019 to mid-2021, it still can’t be said that SpaceX has been slacking off in 2022. Booster 7 alone completed more than 24 distinct tests (including six static fires) between early April and late November.
But in a shift from the first three or so years of steel Starship development, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has ceased to be a consistent source of information on the purpose and results of many of those tests, even as NASA has begun to funnel hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into the Starship program. Save for occasional tidbits from SpaceX, Musk, and NASA; or deep unofficial analyses of public information, the day-to-day or week-to-week status of Starship has generally been relegated to speculation. Over the last few months, that information void has only grown larger.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Perhaps the biggest near-term update this year came from a senior NASA official on October 31st. In an advisory briefing, Mark Kirasich – Deputy Associate Administrator for Artemis Campaign Development – offered a surprising amount of detail about SpaceX’s near-term plans and even reported that Starship’s first orbital test flight was expected as early as December 2022, pending several crucial tests. But more than five weeks later, SpaceX appears to have only made a modest amount of progress towards those milestones and has yet to attempt the two most important tests.
Kirasich: First orbital Starship/Super Heavy expected in December. Still waiting for full 33 engine test, wet dress rehearsel, and FAA licensing. Will land in ocean off Hawaii. pic.twitter.com/FktCggnPEe— Marcia Smith (@SpcPlcyOnline) October 31, 2022
Nonetheless, some progress – however indeterminate without official information – has been made. As of Kirasich’s briefing, SpaceX was in the middle of a relatively minor series of cautious propellant loading tests with Booster 7 and Ship 24, which were stacked on October 20th. After three more partial full-stack tests in the first seven days of November, Ship 24 was removed. Aside from the visible steps SpaceX took after, little is known about the outcome of those propellant loading tests.
Ship 24’s fate is a different story, but Super Heavy B7 appeared to make it through full-stack testing in great shape. On November 14th, Booster 7 completed a record-breaking 14-engine static fire, doubling its previous record of seven engines and likely becoming one of the most powerful rockets in history. Musk simply stated that the “test went well”.
Poor weather undoubtedly contributed, but it would be another 15 days before Booster 7’s next test. On November 29th, after an aborted test on the 28th, SpaceX followed Booster 7’s record-breaking 14-engine static fire with a longer 13-second test of 11 Raptors. Before engine ignition, SpaceX loaded Booster 7 with around 2800 tons (~6.2M lb) of liquid oxygen (LOx) propellant in less than 90 minutes, making it a partial wet dress rehearsal (the methane tank was barely filled) as well. Musk called it “a little more progress towards Mars” and SpaceX shared a photo of the static fire on Twitter, but the results of the test – meant “to test autogenous pressurization” – were kept mostly opaque.
That uncertainty didn’t help when two of Booster 7’s 33 Raptor engines were removed immediately after the long-duration test. Then, Booster 7 was removed from Starbase’s lone ‘orbital launch mount’ on December 2nd and rolled back to the factory’s High Bay assembly facility on December 3rd. Historically, SpaceX has only returned Booster 7 to the factory to repair damage or install missing hardware. Without official information, it’s impossible to say why Booster 7 returned for the sixth time.
The most optimistic explanation is that SpaceX brought the Super Heavy booster back to the factory to fully close out its engine section heat shield, which currently has 20 missing panels for each of its outer Raptor engines. But there’s a good reason that those panels were never reinstalled. Any replacements would need to be modified to ensure that the ad-hoc system installed to prevent the conditions that led to Booster 7’s first explosion from recurring can still be used for future static fire tests. Even then, it’s unclear why SpaceX would need to reinstall those panels now for Booster 7’s upcoming 33-engine static fire(s) and full-stack wet dress rehearsal(s) when they weren’t needed for 11 and 14-engine static fires and a dozen other fire-free tests.
Depending on why Booster 7 is back at the factory, there is a precedent for it returning to the launch site as early as next week. Alternatively, if major work or repairs are required, it could be six weeks before SpaceX returns the rocket to the launch pad. Given that the full wet dress rehearsals and one or several 33-engine static fires standing between Booster 7 and flight readiness will be riskier and more challenging than any other test the prototype has completed to date, there is no real chance that Starship will be ready for its first orbital launch this year.
In fact, without detailed information, especially regarding Ship 24’s mysterious state, it’s difficult to pinpoint a viable target for Starship’s orbital launch debut more specific than the first half of 2023. But with any luck, even if it requires a substantially longer wait, SpaceX’s recent decision to make Starbase move slower and break fewer things will hopefully pay off with a successful debut sometime next year.
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
