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.
News
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Honda has given up on a previous plan to completely changeover to EVs by 2040, a new report states. The company’s CEO, Toshihiro Mibe, said that the idea is “not realistic.”
Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.
Mibe said (via Motor1):
“Because of the uncertainty in the business environment and also the customer demand, is changing beyond our expectation and, therefore, we have judged that it’ll be difficult to achieve. That ratio [100-percent electric in 2040] is not realistic as of now. We have withdrawn this target.”
Instead of going all-electric, Honda still wants to oblige by its hopes to be net carbon neutral by 2050. It will do this by focusing on those popular hybrid powertrains, planning to launch 15 of them by March 2030.
Honda will invest 4.4 trillion yen, or almost $28 billion, to build hybrid powertrains built around four and six-cylinder gas engines.
There are so many companies abandoning their all-electric ambitions or even slowing their roll on building them so quickly. Ford, General Motors, Mercedes, and Nissan have all retreated from aggressive EV targets by either cancelling, delaying, or pausing the development of electric models.
Hyundai’s 2030 targets rely on mixed offerings of electric, hybrid & hydrogen vehicles
Early-decade pledges from multiple brands proved overly ambitious as infrastructure lags, battery costs remain high in some markets, and many buyers prefer hybrids for their convenience and range. Toyota has long championed hybrids, while others have quietly extended internal-combustion timelines.
For Honda—historically known for reliable gasoline engines—this shift leverages its core strengths while buying time to refine electric technology. Whether the hybrid-heavy strategy will protect market share in an increasingly competitive landscape remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the gas engine is far from dead at Honda, unfortunately.
Elon Musk
Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
SpaceX frontman Elon Musk explained on Wednesday why commercial airline Delta got cold feet over offering Starlink for stable internet on its flights — and the reason will probably shock you.
In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.
Delta rejected Starlink because it insisted on routing all connectivity through its branded “Delta Sync” portal rather than allowing a simple Starlink experience.
Instead, the airline partnered with Amazon’s Project Kuiper—rebranded as Amazon Leo—for high-speed Wi-Fi on up to 500 aircraft, with rollout targeted for 2028. At the time of the announcement, Kuiper had roughly 300 satellites in orbit, while Starlink operated more than 10,400.
The use of the “Delta Sync” portal would not work for SpaceX, as Musk went on to say that:
“SpaceX requires that there be no annoying ‘portal’ to use Starlink. Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home. Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning strategy.”
Musk doubled down in a follow-up post:
“Yes, SpaceX deliberately accepted lower revenue deals with airlines in exchange for making Starlink super easy to use and available to all passengers.”
Not exactly. SpaceX requires that there be no annoying “portal” to use Starlink.
Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home.
Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2026
SpaceX has structured its airline agreements to prioritize zero-friction access—no captive portals, no SkyMiles logins, no paywalls or ads blocking basic connectivity.
While this means forgoing higher-margin deals that would let carriers monetize the service more aggressively, it ensures Starlink feels like home broadband at 35,000 feet. Passengers on partner airlines such as United, Qatar Airways, and Air France have already praised the service for enabling seamless video calls, streaming, and work mid-flight without interruptions.
Delta’s choice reflects a different philosophy. By keeping Wi-Fi behind its Delta Sync ecosystem, the airline aims to drive loyalty program engagement and control the digital passenger journey. Yet, critics argue this short-term control comes at the expense of immediate competitiveness.
Airlines already installing Starlink are pulling ahead in customer satisfaction surveys, while Delta passengers face years of reliance on slower, legacy systems until Leo launches.
SpaceX’s decision to trade revenue for simplicity will pay off in the longer term, as Starlink is already positioning itself as the default high-speed option for carriers that value passenger satisfaction over incremental fees.
Musk’s focus on creating not only a great service but also a reasonable user experience highlights SpaceX’s prowess with Starlink as it continues to expand across new partners and regions.
News
Tesla gathers 93,000 FSD miles in a country where FSD isn’t approved – here’s how
Tesla has quietly logged an impressive 93,000 miles (roughly 150,000 km) of autonomous driving at its Giga Berlin factory—using Full Self-Driving (FSD) in a country where the technology remains unavailable to consumers on public roads.
Tesla has gathered 93,000 Full Self-Driving miles in a country where Full Self-Driving is not even approved. Here’s how.
Tesla has quietly logged an impressive 93,000 miles (roughly 150,000 km) of autonomous driving at its Giga Berlin factory—using Full Self-Driving (FSD) in a country where the technology remains unavailable to consumers on public roads.
The milestone, revealed alongside news that Giga Berlin has now built 750,000 Model Y vehicles, highlights how Tesla is putting its AI to work in one of the most controlled environments imaginable: it’s own factory floor.
Every Model Y that rolls off the final assembly line at Giga Berlin doesn’t need a human driver to reach the outbound lot. Instead, the freshly built vehicles engage FSD and navigate themselves across the factory campus.
The Tesla Model Ys rolling off the production line at Giga Berlin have now driven themselves on FSD a combined 93,000 miles from the end of the production line to the outbound lot. https://t.co/6RhL3W4q4p pic.twitter.com/DOKKHUcSSL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 11, 2026
The route—from the end of the production line through marked internal pathways to the staging area where cars await delivery or export—is entirely on private property. No public roads, no mixed traffic, and no regulatory hurdles for on-road autonomous operation.
It’s a closed-loop system: wide lanes, predictable layouts, minimal pedestrians, and consistent conditions that make it one of the simplest proving grounds for the software.
A short factory tour video shared by Tesla Manufacturing shows General Assembly team member Jan explaining the process. Gesturing beside a glossy black Model Y still wearing its protective wrap, he notes the cumulative distance the fleet has covered autonomously.
Tesla Giga Berlin seems to be using FSD Unsupervised to move Model Y units
The cars handle the short drive flawlessly, freeing up workers who would otherwise spend hours shuttling vehicles manually. For a high-volume plant like Giga Berlin, the time and labor savings add up quickly. Even small gains in cycle time per car can reclaim valuable space in the outbound lot and streamline logistics.
This internal deployment serves multiple purposes. First, it delivers zero-cost validation data. Each factory run exposes FSD to real-world physics—acceleration, steering precision, obstacle avoidance—in a repeatable setting far safer than public testing.
Second, it demonstrates the system’s readiness at scale. If FSD can reliably move thousands of brand-new cars without intervention inside a busy factory, it underscores the robustness of the vision-based, end-to-end neural network Tesla has been refining.
Critics often point to Europe’s cautious regulatory stance on unsupervised autonomy, yet Tesla has turned that limitation into an advantage. While owners in Germany still cannot activate consumer FSD on highways or city streets, the software is already proving its worth behind the factory gates.
The 93,000 miles represent not just internal efficiency gains but a subtle flex: the cars are manufactured ready to navigate autonomously, at least in the bounds of the factory. It’s a big feather in the cap of FSD, even if regulators have yet to green-light broader use.
As Giga Berlin continues ramping output, expect this autonomous logistics loop to grow. What began as a practical workaround for moving finished vehicles has quietly become one of the most compelling real-world showcases of FSD’s potential—right in the heart of regulated Europe. Tesla isn’t waiting for approval to perfect its autonomy; it’s already driving the future, one factory mile at a time.
Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’
Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you
