News
SpaceX eyes two Falcon 9 launches and a Starship hop in three days (Update: one day!)
Update: In a surprise twist, SpaceX has confirmed plans to launch SAOCOM 1B, Starlink-11, and hop Starship SN6 in less than ten hours on August 30th.
Contingent upon a ULA Delta IV Heavy launch on August 29th, Starlink-11 is scheduled to lift off on a Falcon 9 rocket no earlier than (NET) 10:12 am EDT (UTC-4), followed by SAOCOM 1B on a separate Falcon 9 NET 7:18 pm EDT (UTC-4). Simultaneously, SpaceX is currently working towards a second full-scale Starship hop test between 8 am and 8 pm CDT (UTC-5) on Sunday, August 30th.
Pending an August 29th mission from competitor ULA, SpaceX aims to attempt two orbital Falcon 9 launches and a Starship hop test over the course of just a few days.
A United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV Heavy rocket was originally scheduled to launch the secretive National Reconnaissance Office 44 (NROL-44) spy satellite on Wednesday before the customer requested a 24-hour delay and technical rocket bugs pushed the mission to no earlier than (NET) August 27th and now August 29th. Delta IV Heavy’s low cadence of one or two annual launches has traditionally made it hard for the rocket to launch on time, offering very few opportunities for the company to work the kinks out of the complex system.
ULA’s NROL-44 launch currently holds precedence over other missions scheduled around the same time, meaning that SpaceX has no choice but to delay its own launches every time the ULA mission slips. SpaceX has two launches currently in queue: Argentinian Earth observation satellite SAOCOM 1B was scheduled to launch NET 7:19 pm EDT (UTC-4) on August 28th, while SpaceX’s 11th Starlink v1.0 launch was expected to lift off NET 10:08 am EDIT (UTC-4) on August 30th. Simultaneously, a SpaceX Starship prototype is tracking towards its first short hop somewhere in between those orbital launches. ULA’s second NROL-44 delay has thrown both SpaceX launch dates somewhat up in the air, however.
Starship SN6 Flight 1
Recent delays to SpaceX’s East Coast launches have pushed the company’s second full-scale Starship hop test to the front of the line. Starship serial number 6 (SN6) is currently scheduled to attempt its first 150m (~500 ft) hop as early as Saturday, August 29th. Coming less than four weeks after Starship SN5 became the first full-scale prototype to successfully lift off (and land) on August 4th, a second successful hop – with an entirely different Raptor engine and Starship prototype – would be an extraordinary feat.
Meanwhile, SpaceX is simultaneously inspecting and repairing the hop-proven Starship SN5 prototype – most likely with the intention of flying the ship again in the near future. According to CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX’s current goal is to perform “several” fast-paced Starship hop tests to streamline the new rocket’s launch operations. The August 29th window for SN6’s 150m hop lasts from 8am to 8pm and the rocket could attempt to lift off as early as 10am to noon.
SAOCOM 1B
Sister to the SAOCOM 1A satellite SpaceX launched from California in October 2018, SAOCOM 1B is more or less identical. Notably, however, it will launch from Florida – the first polar launch planned from the US East Coast in half a century. The reason the United States effectively retired the Eastern polar launch corridor is a bizarre story of Cold War tensions gone awry but the gist is that SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will ‘dogleg’ midflight, changing its trajectory to avoid overflying populated regions.
Originally scheduled to launch as early as March 30th, the Argentinian satellite has been relentlessly delayed by coronavirus-related restrictions and technical delays. SAOCOM 1B’s Falcon 9 booster was even swapped amidst the delays, switching from B1051 to B1059 as SpaceX strove to fill the gap in its manifest with internal Starlink missions. Now, NROL-44’s technical launch delays have pushed the Falcon 9 mission from August 27th to NET 7:19 pm EDT (UTC-4) on Sunday, August 30th.
SAOCOM 1B will be SpaceX’s first return-to-launch-site (RTLS) booster landing since March 2020.
Starlink-11
Finally, prior to NROL-44’s 72-hour slip, SpaceX’s 11th Starlink v1.0 mission and 12th Starlink launch overall was scheduled NET Sunday, August 30th. ULA’s delays have added considerable uncertainty, at one point pushing Starlink-11 to a tentative September 1st NET before the launch date (rather oddly) slipped back into late-August. Assuming SpaceX still has to wait for ULA, the most likely alternative is August 31st, given that August 30th would necessitate two launches in less than ten hours.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
