News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk talks Starship explosion: “We were too dumb”
Two days after a last-second failure caused Starship SN9 to smash into the ground and explode, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has returned to Twitter with some harsh preliminary reactions.
Right off the bat, in response to a question about why Starships SN8 and SN9 both attempted their unsuccessful landings with only two of three available Raptor engines, Musk frankly stated that “we were too dumb.” At face value, it’s a decent question, given that there are no obvious showstoppers to explain why Starships couldn’t make the most of the redundancy their three Raptor engines can offer.
After completing an otherwise flawless 6.5 minutes launch, ascent, and belly-flop descent, Starship SN9 began a critical ~120-degree flip maneuver, sequentially igniting two Raptor engines and using that thrust to flip from a belly-down attitude to a tail-first landing configuration. Unfortunately, though the first Raptor did fire up and put in a good effort, the second engine failed to ignite, leaving the building-sized rocket to impact the ground traveling far too quickly.
Ironically, more than three years ago, Musk himself revealed in a Reddit Ask Me Anything thread that he and his engineers had decided to modify Starship’s (then known as BFS) design by adding a third Raptor to its central cluster of two engines.
“Btw, we modified the [Starship] design since IAC [2017] to add a third medium-area-ratio Raptor engine partly for that reason (lose only 1/3 thrust in engine out) and allow landings with higher payload mass for the Earth to Earth transport function.”
Elon Musk – Reddit AMA – October 2017
Primarily meant to enable more efficient landings in Earth’s atmosphere, adding a third engine to that cluster would logically increase the chances of a successful (or at least survivable) landing in the event that one engine fails. Greater thrust and an improved thrust-to-weight ratio both during launch and landing would fundamentally improve the efficiency of Starship, likely making up for most or all of the added weight.



In retrospect, it’s not entirely surprising to learn that a three-engine landing burn is probably the most logical option if three landing-class engines have been included in the design. In SpaceX and Musk’s defense, however, there are also several good reasons to use as few Raptor engines as possible.
It was foolish of us not to start 3 engines & immediately shut down 1, as 2 are needed to land— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 4, 2021
Throttling high-performance rocket engines is exceptionally difficult and Raptor is not yet a fully mature engine, meaning that it’s throttle capabilities are likely less than optimal. That’s relevant because the higher a rocket’s thrust-to-weight ratio during landing, the more aggressive its landings have to be. SpaceX is apparently extremely conservative with Starship in this regard, prioritizing slow, gentle landings by only using two of three available engines.
Ironically, it’s possible that that attempt at risk reduction resulted in harder landings for both Starship SN8 and SN9, as three-engine landing burns could have potentially slowed them down significantly more before impact.
At the same time, though it may have mitigated the severity of both landing failures, three-engine landing burns would not have resolved the fundamental issues that caused them. In SN8’s case, low fuel header tank pressure doomed the Starship, while SN9 is more ambiguous. Aside from the clear Raptor ignition failure, which a three-engine burn could have resolved by downselecting to two healthier engines, the one Raptor that did ignite appeared to suffer some kind of uncontained failure seconds before landing.
Impressively, despite that apparent combustion chamber or preburner failure, the engine’s landing burn seemed to continued uninterrupted until the moment of impact. As such, it’s hard to say if that lone Raptor was still producing substantial thrust or if it was in the throes of a catastrophic failure. If it could have held on for another 5-10 seconds and the third Raptor (the engine that didn’t reignite) was able to restart and perform without issue, a three-engine landing burn could have easily made SN9’s demise less violent or even have enabled a soft landing.
While a three-engine burn all the way to touchdown appears to be extremely risky or impossible for present-day Starships, Musk implied that there was nothing preventing SpaceX from reigniting all three engines during the initial flip and landing burn and using that time to determine the health of all three engines. If all three were healthy, Starship would shut down one for a soft landing. If one engine failed to restart or lost thrust shortly after ignition, the other two would already be active and able to take over.
Musk says that Starship SN10, already at the launch pad and likely days away from its first tests, will attempt to adopt that approach on an upcoming test flight expected as few as 2-3 weeks from now.
Elon Musk
Tesla preps for a harsh potential reality if Musk comp vote doesn’t go to plan
A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.
Tesla could be forced to look for a new CEO in the coming months, as a crucial November 6 Shareholder Meeting vote will determine whether Elon Musk will stick around.
A major vote is coming up at the 2025 Tesla Shareholder Meeting, as investors will determine whether Musk should be given a new compensation plan that would award him up to $1 trillion and more than one-fourth of the total voting power within the company.
Tesla board chair reiterates widely unmentioned point of Musk comp plan
A successful vote for Tesla would see the compensation package get approved. But there is always the possibility of a rejection, which would likely see Musk leave the company.
“My fundamental concern with regard to how much voting control I have at Tesla is if I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That’s my biggest concern,” Musk said at last week’s Earnings Call. “That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”
Tesla Board of Directors Head Robyn Denholm has been on somewhat of a PR tour over the past few days, answering questions about the compensation plan, which is among the biggest issues currently for the company.
Denholm told Bloomberg yesterday that Tesla investors need to be prepared for Musk to abandon ship if the package is not approved, which brings on a new question: Who would take over the CEO role?
That is a question Denholm also answered yesterday, bringing forth the conclusion that Tesla would not look for an outside hire if Musk were to leave the company. Instead, it would promote someone internally.
The way it was reported by Bloomberg and Reuters seems to make it seem as if Tesla is preparing for the worst, as it states the company “is looking at internal CEO candidates,” not preparing to do so.
Of the executives at Tesla who immediately come to mind as ideal candidates for a potential takeover should Musk leave, Tesla China President Tom Zhu and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy both come to mind. Zhu has monumental executive experience already, as he was appointed to the role of Senior VP of Automotive back in December 2022.
He then returned to China in 2024.
It seems Tesla wants to align its future, with or without Musk, on the same path that it is currently on, and internal candidates might have a better idea of what that looks like and truly means.
News
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) is nearing approval in a new country
As per the official, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system could be enabled in Israel in the near future.
It appears that Tesla FSD (Supervised) is heading to a new country soon, at least based on comments from Israel’s Transport and Road Safety Minister Miri Regev.
As per the official, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system could be enabled in Israel in the near future.
Israeli drivers are pushing for FSD rollout
While Tesla’s FSD is already operational in markets like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, Israeli owners have long been unable to use the feature due to regulatory barriers. Despite its premium price tag, however, numerous Tesla owners in Israel have noted that the technology’s safety benefits, at least when approved for real-world use in the country, justify its cost.
It was then no surprise that nearly 1,000 Tesla owners in Israel have already petitioned the government to greenlight FSD’s domestic release in Israel. In a post on X, Regev seemed to confirm that FSD is indeed coming to Israel. “I’ve received the many referrals from Tesla drivers in Israel! Tesla drivers? Soon you won’t need to hold the steering wheel,” she wrote in her post.
FSD’s regulatory support in Israel
Regev stated that her Ministry views promoting innovative technologies as essential to improving both road safety and smart mobility. A working group led by Moshe Ben-Zaken, Director General of the Ministry of Transportation has reportedly been tasked to finalize the approval process, coordinating with regulatory and safety agencies to ensure compliance with international standards.
In a comment to Geektime, Israel’s Ministry of Transportation and Road Safety noted that Regev is indeed supporting the release of FSD in the country. “Minister Regev sees great importance in promoting innovative technologies, and in particular in the entry of advanced driving systems (FSD) into the Israeli market, as part of the ministry’s policy to encourage innovation, safety, and smart transportation,” the Ministry stated.
Investor's Corner
Bank of America raises Tesla PT to $471, citing Robotaxi and Optimus potential
The firm also kept a Neutral rating on the electric vehicle maker, citing strong progress in autonomy and robotics.
Bank of America has raised its Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) price target by 38% to $471, up from $341 per share.
The firm also kept a Neutral rating on the electric vehicle maker, citing strong progress in autonomy and robotics.
Robotaxi and Optimus momentum
Bank of America analyst Federico Merendi noted that the firm’s price target increase reflects Tesla’s growing potential in its Robotaxi and Optimus programs, among other factors. BofA’s updated valuation is based on a sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) model extending through 2040, which shows the Robotaxi platform accounting for 45% of total value. The model also shows Tesla’s humanoid robot Optimus contributing 19%, and Full Self-Driving (FSD) and the Energy segment adding 17% and 6% respectively.
“Overall, we find that TSLA’s core automotive business represents around 12% of the total value while robotaxi is 45%, FSD is 17%, Energy Generation & Storage is around 6% and Optimus is 19%,” the Bank of America analyst noted.
Still a Neutral rating
Despite recognizing long-term potential in AI-driven verticals, Merendi’s team maintained a Neutral rating, suggesting that much of the optimism is already priced into Tesla’s valuation.
“Our PO revision is driven by a lower cost of equity capital, better Robotaxi progress, and a higher valuation for Optimus to account for the potential entrance into international markets,” the analyst stated.
Interestingly enough, Tesla’s core automotive business, which contributes the lion’s share of the company’s operations today, represents just 12% of total value in BofA’s model.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News2 weeks agoTesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News1 week agoTesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles

