Connect with us

News

SpaceX Starship kicks off busy week of tests to prepare for flight debut

SpaceX technicians work on top of Starship SN5 ahead of the rocket's first static fire test. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal)

Published

on

After many delays, SpaceX’s fifth full-scale Starship prototype is almost ready for a busy week of crucial tests that will determine whether the rocket will become the first of its kind to take flight.

On June 24th, SpaceX lifted Starship serial number 5 (SN5) onto a robotic transporter and rolled the giant steel rocket about a mile down the road to the company’s nearby test facilities and launch pad. Already slowed down a number of weeks by Starship SN4’s explosive end a month prior, teams were in the middle of completing extensive pad repairs (and likely some upgrades, too). Nevertheless, about a week after arriving at the pad, SpaceX kicked off two important tests – both of which SN5 would need to pass to move on to bigger challenges.

Pass those tests Starship SN5 certainly did, completing an ambient temperature pressure test to check for leaks, immediately followed by a cryogenic proof test that proved the ship was structurally sound and ready for short hops. While significant, SpaceX has only tested SN5 (and its repaired pad systems) with benign liquid nitrogen – still extremely cold but chemically unreactive (i.e. nonexplosive). The pad repairs still need to be fully put through their paces with combustible liquid methane and oxygen propellant, as does Starship SN5. Enter today’s planned test.

Barring additional (rather likely) delays, SpaceX is scheduled to put Starship SN5 through its first fueling test(s) during a window stretching from 8am to 5pm CDT on Monday, July 20th. Assuming that the “fueling test” referred to in public road closure alerts is a routine wet dress rehearsal (WDR), the test will involve SpaceX loading Starship SN5 with a large volume of liquid oxygen and methane propellant – similar to but substantially riskier than a liquid nitrogen proof test. SpaceX actually appeared to briefly attempt such a test on July 17th but signs that Starship SN5 was pressurized quickly disappeared and the road closure was lifted, signaling an abort.

Advertisement

Two and a half days of tweaks later, SpaceX’s July 19th closure was cancelled but the July 20th instance remains in place. If successful, Starship SN5 is expected to attempt to static fire its lone Raptor engine perhaps just a few days later, although that obviously assumes that both SN5 and the new pad hardware function perfectly during their biggest test yet.

(NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

Much like SN4’s several successful Raptor static fires, Starship SN5’s one or several tests aren’t expected to be any different. If the first test is a perfect success, proving that the rocket and Raptor engine SN27 are healthy and operating as a cohesive unit, SpaceX’s next goal is the flight debut of a full-scale Starship. Thanks to a broad FAA launch license effectively permitting unlimited suborbital Starship flight tests, SpaceX technically no longer has to stick to the 150m (~500 ft) ceiling originally set for Starhopper, but chances are good that it will still be the general target.

Stay tuned for an unofficial NASASpaceflight.com livestream of today’s planned Starship SN5 fuel test, should it remain on schedule.

(NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

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

News

Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one

Published

on

Justin Pacheco, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.

SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.

These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.

Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.

Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.

Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.

Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook

However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.

Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.

Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.

The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.

The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.

TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.

Tesla Full Self-Driving gets first-ever European approval

Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.

Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.

TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of ​vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.

This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.

This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.

However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.

Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla teases greater Grok FSD integration and ‘Banish’ feature ‘in about 3 months’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.

The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.

A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”

Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.

Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.

This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.

The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.

Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:

Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says

It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.

Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.

Here’s an example of that from December:

Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.

We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.

Continue Reading