News
SpaceX Starship eyes Tuesday launch after FAA communication breakdown causes delays
Two new sourced reports suggest that SpaceX’s fast-moving approach to Starship development and a shocking level of naivety and ineptitude on behalf of the FAA’s regulatory responsibilities combined to delay the latest Starship test flight.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX was clearly and publicly targeting a Starship launch as early as 12pm to 5pm on Monday, March 29th after unknown issues delayed a Friday attempt. Those plans were writ large on SpaceX’s own website and via CEO Elon Musk’s tweets a full three days before launch and confirmed by road closures, notices to mariners, and the FAA’s own flight restrictions and advisories 24-48 hours prior. Around 11am CDT Monday, Musk revealed that SpaceX had been forced to call off the day’s launch attempt because an FAA-required inspector was “unable to reach” Boca Chica in time.
Now, per reports separately corroborated by The Verge reporter Joey Roulette and Washington Post reporter Christian Davenport, a clearer picture of what exactly transpired is available.
Roulette first broke the news, offering a better look at a portion of the debacle. Per “a source,” SpaceX had apparently told the FAA inspector – who had been waiting all week for Starship SN11’s launch debut – that plans for a Monday recycle had been canceled. The inspector then flew home to Florida. However, as things often do and have, the situation rapidly changed and SpaceX suddenly found itself in a position to launch on Monday.
According to the apparent FAA-side source, SpaceX dropped that change of plans on the agency’s lap late on Sunday, leading the inspector to “[scramble]” onto a Monday flight that was somehow too late to arrive before the 5pm CDT end of Starship’s test window. In a statement, the FAA chided SpaceX, stating that the company “must provide adequate notice of its launch schedule to allow for a safety inspector to travel to Boca Chica.”
Under that description of events, it would be hard not to find SpaceX clearly in the wrong. Mere hours of notice – and only offered late on Sunday evening – would make it difficult for anyone to abruptly arrange a 1300-mile, multi-stop flight. At the same time, though, someone capable of singlehandedly scrubbing an entire rocket launch attempt on a whim (or an accident) is obviously not just “anyone” and a functional regulatory apparatus probably wouldn’t leave the entirety of that substantial responsibility up to a single employee.
As it so happened, Roulette’s source only offer part of the picture. According to Christian Davenport and his sources, SpaceX (or someone) did tell the FAA inspector that it was safe to head home on Friday because the company was struggling to secure road closures from Cameron County for a Monday launch attempt. Apparently, the issue was so extreme that SpaceX wasn’t sure if a launch on any day of the next week would be possible.
However, sometime early on Sunday morning, SpaceX secured a road closure for a Monday Starship launch attempt. According to Davenport, SpaceX emailed the FAA inspector but he “didn’t see the email,” which presumably served as a notice of plans for a Starship launch attempt. Logically, SpaceX then began attempting to call the FAA (inspector?) but didn’t get an answer or call back until “late Sunday night.”
Via Cameron County’s explicitly public road closure announcement website, Monday’s road closure was granted no later than 11am CDT. Assuming SpaceX emailed the FAA inspector around then, that email effectively served as a notice of launch plans more than 24 hours before the window was scheduled to open. If SpaceX didn’t somehow forget to email until hours later, Davenport’s description implies that it took SpaceX hours of constant phone calls before the FAA finally responded.
If that series of events is accurate, as it seems to be, it’s a searing indictment of systematic ineptitude and laziness on behalf of the FAA. Having changed SpaceX’s Starship launch license to necessitate the presence of an FAA inspector mere weeks ago, thus giving a single person the power to scrub an entire launch attempt, the regulatory agency appears to have entrusted the entirety of that responsibility to a single “inspector.” Knowing full well that SpaceX works continuously with multiple shifts after almost two years of managing Starhopper and Starship tests, hops, and launches, the FAA then failed to ensure that some kind of communications infrastructure was in place to keep SpaceX appraised about the availability of a single inspector it now fully hinged on for all future Starship launches.
If, as the phrasing in both reports suggests, the FAA allotted a single government inspector to preside over all future Starship launches, that alone would bely a ridiculous level of ineptitude and naivete (or ignorance). To then trust that single person with nearly all of the responsibility of maintaining contact with SpaceX, day and night, would be akin to the FAA consciously guaranteeing that a disruptive breakdown in communications like this one would happen.
All told, SpaceX likely also needs to do some recalibration to better mesh and coexist with the FAA’s glacial reaction time and pace of work. However, the FAA is not going to be winning any favors if it continues to manage SpaceX’s Starship licensing in a manner as inept and cavalier as it has been. Far more importantly, if the FAA – one of the largest, best-funded regulatory bodies responsible for ensuring the safety of some of the most complex systems and vehicles on Earth – is unable to perform tasks as rudimentary as scheduling and contingency planning, it’s difficult to imagine how that same office could be trusted to regulate – and make safer – systems as extraordinarily complex as launch vehicles.
With any luck, the FAA will prove that the last four months have been minor bumps in the road to reliably and professionally licensing and regulating SpaceX’s Starship launch vehicle. However, after two separate demonstrations of systematic mismanagement over a mere four Starship launch attempts, it’s becoming harder and harder to soundly argue that the FAA still deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Assuming the FAA inspector is on schedule, Starship SN11’s next launch attempt is now scheduled between 7am and 3pm CDT (UTC-5) on Tuesday, March 30th.
Tesla Cybertruck’s newest trim level is nearing its first deliveries just a few months after being offered for an incredible deal.
Back in February, Tesla officially launched a new trim of the Cybertruck, the All-Wheel-Drive, starting at just $59,990. It was a lot of truck for the money, especially considering what it offered the Rear-Wheel-Drive variant for last year, which was a total flop.
The $59,990 price that was offered initially was a deal due to its 325-mile range rating, powered tonneau, three bed outlets, Powershare capability, coil springs with adaptive damping for a refined suspension feel, Steer-by-Wire and four-wheel steering, a 6′ x 4′ composite bed, towing capacity of 7,500 pounds, and a powered frunk.
Tesla is now nearing deliveries of this trim, according to watcher Sawyer Merritt, as Tesla has officially started assigning VINs to people who ordered the vehicle initially:
I can confirm that Tesla has officially started assigning VINs to people who initially ordered the $59,990 Cybertruck Dual-Motor AWD, which means first deliveries should start in the coming weeks!
• 325 mile range
• 7,500 lb towing capacity
• 0-60mph: 4.1s
• Bed with… pic.twitter.com/PQwVYbZf6j— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 24, 2026
Earlier this month, we reported on units of the trim being spotted outside Gigafactory Texas by Joe Tegtmeyer.
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
This Cybertruck trim was interesting because it was released basically out of nowhere, priced incredibly well, and gathered many orders in a small amount of time. However, CEO Elon Musk noted just days afterward that the vehicle would only be priced at this bargain level for ten days.
Tesla fans were not happy.
Awful way to treat customers – particularly when they already sent out a marketing email announcing the $59,990 truck…with zero mention of it being a limited-time offer.
— Ryan McCaffrey (@DMC_Ryan) February 24, 2026
However, the issues with the pricing strategy have blown over since the February unveiling event, and now that deliveries are near, Tesla fans are anticipating the truck making its way to their driveways soon.
The truck is currently priced at $69,990, and deliveries for new orders are slated for between August and September 2026.
Tesla is shipping a new feature that silences neighborhood Supercharger complaints, prompting drivers to be aware of those who might be impacted by excessive noise nearby.
Tesla is now rolling out a new location-specific “Quiet Charging Zone” that prompts drivers to lower their vehicle’s audio volume in an effort to make things comfortable for everyone, even those who are not Tesla owners.
Another beautiful example of Tesla’s vertical integration.
Neighbors were complaining about noise and commotion at this new Supercharger in San Francisco.
So Tesla pushed a software update that asks people to turn their volume down, with a button to do it in 1 tap. Smart. pic.twitter.com/8esuliuzwr
— Whole Mars Catalog (@wholemars) May 20, 2026
This is an impactful feature that will resolve many complaints from those who are living nearby.
When a Tesla plugs into this Supercharger and its media volume exceeds a certain level, the vehicle’s central touchscreen displays a polite notification: “Could you turn the volume down? Please be mindful of our neighbors.”
Accompanying the message is a prominent “Lower” button. One tap automatically reduces the audio to a more considerate level. Physical “Quiet Charging Zone” signs posted at the station reinforce the request, creating a cohesive experience that blends digital nudges with on-site reminders.
This feature highlights Tesla’s unique advantages. Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla owns both the vehicle software and the charging infrastructure.
Engineers can detect the precise location via GPS, trigger context-aware prompts, and deploy changes fleet-wide in hours or days without recalls or dealer visits. No public release notes highlighted the change, suggesting it was a quiet, site-specific rollout designed to test effectiveness before potential expansion.
These are usually referred to as “Undocumented Changes.”
Beyond immediate noise reduction, the initiative underscores Tesla’s customer- and community-focused ethos. While EVs are inherently quieter than combustion-engine vehicles, auxiliary behaviors like loud infotainment can still create friction in dense cities. Tesla’s rapid response turns potential conflict into an opportunity to demonstrate thoughtful engineering.
As Tesla expands its Supercharger network, which is now open to other EVs in many places, features like location-based quiet modes could become standard tools for harmonious integration into neighborhoods.
Ferrari unveiled its Luce EV over the weekend, and so far, its reception has been an absolute disaster, gathering negative reactions from a wide variety of people, including former executives.
The stock even took a hit on its first day of trading following the unveiling, dropping over 7 percent at one point.
Ferrari moving to EVs from its traditional V12s and mid-engine sports cars is a massive move. It was designed by Sir Jony Ive and Marc Newsom’s LoveFrom studio, which is known for design work for tech giant Apple. “Luce” means “light” in Italian, so Ferrari drew inspiration for its name from its sleek design, characterized by a smooth, sculpted body with rounded edges.
But its reception has been far from what Ferrari expected. The overall design has drawn some harsh criticism since its reveal, and it is simply stunning that such a storied company, with a rich history of beautiful, powerful cars has revealed a design that many are not a fan of.
Ferrari unveiled its all-electric Luce over the weekend, and it has truly gotten some attention…not for the right reasons.
From an Italian legend that has built some beautiful cars in its history, this almost feels like a ploy to inevitably cancel its electric program. pic.twitter.com/rczSSb3pJx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Responses to the design were widely negative, with some saying, “Enzo is rolling in his grave,” and “This looks like a Nissan LEAF with a bad body kit.”
Former Ferrari Chairman Luca di Montezemolo said:
“If I said what I really think, I’d harm Ferrari. We’re risking the destruction of a myth, I’m very sorry about that. I hope they at least remove the Prancing Horse from that car.”
🚨 Luca di Montezemolo former Ferrari chairman reacts to the new electric Ferrari Luce:
“I’ve seen the project has already been delayed more than two years. I don’t like commenting from the stands—when I was in the game, it annoyed me when people did that. I think for now the… https://t.co/TzIDxFzHso
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Ferrari has scaled back EV commitments in the past, primarily in response to weaker-than-expected demand for its electric powertrains.
Priced at roughly $640,000 in the U.S., it is tough to see how this car will ever truly live up to the massive expectations many had for it. It almost feels like, to a certain extent, Ferrari is looking for a way to get out of building EVs.
Tesla Cybertruck’s newest trim is nearing its first deliveries
Tesla ships new feature that silences neighborhood Supercharger complaints
