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.
Elon Musk shared an incredible detail about Tesla Cybercab’s potential efficiency, as the company has hinted in the past that it could be one of the most affordable vehicles to operate from a per-mile basis.
ARK Invest released a report recently that shed some light on the potential incremental cost per mile of various Robotaxis that will be available on the market in the coming years.
The Cybercab, which is detailed for the year 2030, has an exceptionally low cost of operation, which is something Tesla revealed when it unveiled the vehicle a year and a half ago at the “We, Robot” event in Los Angeles.
Musk said on numerous occasions that Tesla plans to hit the $0.20 cents per mile mark with the Cybercab, describing a “clear path” to achieving that figure and emphasizing it is the “full considered” cost, which would include energy, maintenance, cleaning, depreciation, and insurance.
Probably true
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 22, 2026
ARK’s report showed that the Cybercab would be roughly half the cost of the Waymo 6th Gen Robotaxi in 2030, as that would come in at around $0.40 per mile all in. Cybercab, at scale, would be at $0.20.
Credit: ARK Invest
This would be a dramatic decrease in the cost of operation for Tesla, and the savings would then be passed on to customers who choose to utilize the ride-sharing service for their own transportation needs.
The U.S. average cost of new vehicle ownership is about $0.77 per mile, according to AAA. Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft rideshares often cost between $1 and $4 per mile, while Waymo can cost between $0.60 and $1 or more per mile, according to some estimates.
Tesla’s engineering has been the true driver of these cost efficiencies, and its focus on creating a vehicle that is as cost-effective to operate as possible is truly going to pay off as the vehicle begins to scale. Tesla wants to get the Cybercab to about 5.5-6 miles per kWh, which has been discussed with prototypes.
Additionally, fewer parts due to the umboxed manufacturing process, a lower initial cost, and eliminating the need to pay humans for their labor would also contribute to a cheaper operational cost overall. While aspirational, all of the ingredients for this to be a real goal are there.
It may take some time as Tesla needs to hammer the manufacturing processes, and Musk has said there will be growing pains early. This week, he said regarding the early production efforts:
“…initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast.”
Elon Musk
Elon Musk to attend 2026 World Economic Forum at Davos
The Tesla CEO was confirmed as a last-minute speaker for a session with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.
Elon Musk is poised to attend the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos. The Tesla CEO was confirmed as a last-minute speaker for a session with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, signaling a thaw in Musk’s long-strained relationship with the event.
A late addition
Organizers of the World Economic Forum confirmed that Elon Musk was added shortly before the event to a Thursday afternoon session, where he was scheduled to speak with Fink, as noted in a Bloomberg News report. Musk’s upcoming appearance marks Musk’s first participation in the forum, which annually draws political leaders, business executives, and global media to Davos, Switzerland.
Musk’s attendance represents a departure from his past stance toward the event. He had been invited in prior years but declined to attend, including in 2024. His upcoming appearance followed remarks from his political ally, Donald Trump, who addressed the forum earlier in the week with a wide-ranging speech.
A previously strained relationship
Musk had frequently criticized the World Economic Forum in the past, describing it as elitist and questioning its influence. In earlier posts, he characterized the gathering as “boring” and accused it of functioning like an unelected global authority. Those remarks contributed to a long-running distance between Musk and WEF organizers.
The forum previously said Musk had not been invited since 2015, though that position has since shifted. Organizers indicated last year that Musk was welcome amid heightened interest in his political and business activities, including his involvement in the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk later stepped away from that role.
Despite his friction with the World Economic Forum, Musk has remained central to several global events, from SpaceX’s provision of satellite internet services in geopolitically sensitive regions through Starlink to the growing use of xAI’s Grok in U.S. government applications.
News
Tesla states Giga Berlin workforce is stable, rejects media report
As per the electric vehicle maker, production and employment levels at the facility remain stable.
Tesla Germany has denied recent reports alleging that it has significantly reduced staffing at Gigafactory Berlin. As per the electric vehicle maker, production and employment levels at the facility remain stable.
Tesla denies Giga Berlin job cuts report
On Wednesday, German publication Handelsblatt reported that Tesla’s workforce in Gigafactory Berlin had been reduced by about 1,700 since 2024, a 14% drop. The publication cited internal documents as its source for its report.
In a statement to Reuters, Tesla Germany stated that there has been no significant reduction in permanent staff at its Gigafactory in Grünheide compared with 2024, and that there are no plans to curb production or cut jobs at the facility.
“Compared to 2024, there has been no significant reduction in the number of permanent staff. Nor are there any such plans. Compared to 2024, there has been no significant reduction in the number of permanent staff. Nor are there any such plans,” Tesla noted in an emailed statement.
Tesla Germany also noted that it’s “completely normal” for a facility like Giga Berlin to see fluctuations in its headcount.
A likely explanation
There might be a pretty good reason why Giga Berlin reduced its headcount in 2024. As highlighted by industry watcher Alex Voigt, in April of that year, Elon Musk reduced Tesla’s global workforce by more than 10% as part of an effort to lower costs and improve productivity. At the time, several notable executives departed the company, and the Supercharger team was culled.
As with Tesla’s other factories worldwide, Giga Berlin adjusted staffing during that period as well. This could suggest that a substantial number of the 1,700 employees reported by Handelsblatt were likely part of the workers who were let go by Elon Musk during Tesla’s last major workforce reduction.
In contrast to claims of contraction, Tesla has repeatedly signaled plans to expand production capacity in Germany. Giga Berlin factory manager André Thierig has stated on several occasions that the site is expected to increase output in 2026, reinforcing the idea that the facility’s long-term trajectory remains growth-oriented.
Elon Musk shares incredible detail about Tesla Cybercab efficiency
Elon Musk to attend 2026 World Economic Forum at Davos
