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’s new Full Self-Driving pricing strategy will eliminate one recurring complaint that many owners have had in the past: FSD transfers.
In the past, if a Tesla owner purchased the Full Self-Driving suite outright, the company did not allow them to transfer the purchase to a new vehicle, essentially requiring them to buy it all over again, which could obviously get pretty pricey.
This was until Q3 2023, when Tesla allowed a one-time amnesty to transfer Full Self-Driving to a new vehicle, and then again last year.
Tesla is now allowing it to happen again ahead of the February 14th deadline.
The program has given people the opportunity to upgrade to new vehicles with newer Hardware and AI versions, especially those with Hardware 3 who wish to transfer to AI4, without feeling the drastic cost impact of having to buy the $8,000 suite outright on several occasions.
Now, that issue will never be presented again.
Last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced on X that the Full Self-Driving suite would only be available in a subscription platform, which is the other purchase option it currently offers for FSD use, priced at just $99 per month.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Having it available in a subscription-only platform boasts several advantages, including the potential for a tiered system that would potentially offer less expensive options, a pay-per-mile platform, and even coupling the program with other benefits, like Supercharging and vehicle protection programs.
While none of that is confirmed and is purely speculative, the one thing that does appear to be a major advantage is that this will completely eliminate any questions about transferring the Full Self-Driving suite to a new vehicle. This has been a particular point of contention for owners, and it is now completely eliminated, as everyone, apart from those who have purchased the suite on their current vehicle.
Now, everyone will pay month-to-month, and it could make things much easier for those who want to try the suite, justifying it from a financial perspective.
The important thing to note is that Tesla would benefit from a higher take rate, as more drivers using it would result in more data, which would help the company reach its recently-revealed 10 billion-mile threshold to reach an Unsupervised level. It does not cost Tesla anything to run FSD, only to develop it. If it could slice the price significantly, more people would buy it, and more data would be made available.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025
The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y continued to overwhelmingly dominate the United States’ electric vehicle market in 2025. New sales data showed that Tesla’s two mass market cars maintained a commanding segment share, with the Model 3 posting year-to-date growth and the Model Y remaining resilient despite factory shutdowns tied to its refresh.
The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.
Model 3 and Model Y are still dominant
According to the report, Tesla delivered an estimated 192,440 Model 3 sedans in the United States in 2025, representing a 1.3% year-to-date increase compared to 2024. The Model 3 alone accounted for 15.9% of all U.S. EV sales, making it one of the highest-volume electric vehicles in the country.
The Model Y was even more dominant. U.S. deliveries of the all-electric crossover reached 357,528 units in 2025, a 4.0% year-to-date decline from the prior year. It should be noted, however, that the drop came during a year that included production shutdowns at Tesla’s Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Texas as the company transitioned to the new Model Y. Even with those disruptions, the Model Y captured an overwhelming 39.5% share of the market, far surpassing any single competitor.
Combined, the Model 3 and Model Y represented more than half of all EVs sold in the United States during 2025, highlighting Tesla’s iron grip on the country’s mass-market EV segment.
Tesla’s challenges in 2025
Tesla’s sustained performance came amid a year of elevated public and political controversy surrounding Elon Musk, whose political activities in the first half of the year ended up fueling a narrative that the CEO’s actions are damaging the automaker’s consumer appeal. However, U.S. sales data suggest that demand for Tesla’s core vehicles has remained remarkably resilient.
Based on Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report, Tesla’s most expensive offerings such as the Tesla Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X, all saw steep declines in 2025. This suggests that mainstream EV buyers might have had a price issue with Tesla’s more expensive offerings, not an Elon Musk issue.
Ultimately, despite broader EV market softness, with total U.S. EV sales slipping about 2% year-to-date, Tesla still accounted for 58.9% of all EV deliveries in 2025, according to the report. This means that out of every ten EVs sold in the United States in 2025, more than half of them were Teslas.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y earn Euro NCAP Best in Class safety awards
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Tesla won dual categories in the Euro NCAP Best in Class awards, with the Model 3 being named the safest Large Family Car and the Model Y being recognized as the safest Small SUV.
The feat was highlighted by Tesla Europe & Middle East in a post on its official account on social media platform X.
Model 3 and Model Y lead their respective segments
As per a press release from the Euro NCAP, the organization’s Best in Class designation is based on a weighted assessment of four key areas: Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road User, and Safety Assist. Only vehicles that achieved a 5-star Euro NCAP rating and were evaluated with standard safety equipment are eligible for the award.
Euro NCAP noted that the updated Tesla Model 3 performed particularly well in Child Occupant protection, while its Safety Assist score reflected Tesla’s ongoing improvements to driver-assistance systems. The Model Y similarly stood out in Child Occupant protection and Safety Assist, reinforcing Tesla’s dual-category win.
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Euro NCAP leadership shares insights
Euro NCAP Secretary General Dr. Michiel van Ratingen said the organization’s Best in Class awards are designed to help consumers identify the safest vehicles over the past year.
Van Ratingen noted that 2025 was Euro NCAP’s busiest year to date, with more vehicles tested than ever before, amid a growing variety of electric cars and increasingly sophisticated safety systems. While the Mercedes-Benz CLA ultimately earned the title of Best Performer of 2025, he emphasized that Tesla finished only fractionally behind in the overall rankings.
“It was a close-run competition,” van Ratingen said. “Tesla was only fractionally behind, and new entrants like firefly and Leapmotor show how global competition continues to grow, which can only be a good thing for consumers who value safety as much as style, practicality, driving performance, and running costs from their next car.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving pricing strategy eliminates one recurring complaint
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025
