News
SpaceX Starship blew its top during rocket fueling test (updated)
Update: SpaceX has released an official statement indicating that Starship Mk1’s November 20th failure came after a decision to intentionally pressurize the rocket prototype to its limits. This likely means that the test was to max flight pressures and not an intentional burst test, so Starship’s dome failure is still a significant concern and was definitely not planned.
More importantly, SpaceX says that it had already decided to retire Starship Mk1 before any kind of flight testing, treating the vehicle as a pathfinder. Instead, SpaceX will build and use Starship Mk3 – the next Boca Chica prototype – for Starship’s first attempted skydiver-style landing and 20 km (12 mi) flight test.
SpaceX statement on the above test and incident: pic.twitter.com/r1ReRYhUhz— Michael Sheetz (@thesheetztweetz) November 21, 2019
SpaceX’s first full-scale Starship prototype has suffered a significant failure during testing, destroying or severely damaging large sections of the rocket. However, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has already commented on the anomaly and is not all that concerned.
On November 20th, SpaceX – having canceled a planned road closure the day prior – unexpectedly requested a last-second road closure and entered into a much more serious round of testing with Starship Mk1, the rocket’s first full-scale prototype. This followed testing on November 18th that concluded with Starship Mk1’s very first ‘breath’ – some venting activity near the end of a tank proof test. SpaceX technicians spent the next 36 or so hours inspecting and working on Mk1, presumably looking for and patching minor leaks along its tank section.
The November 20th testing progressed far faster than the previous round of tests and Starship Mk1 was quickly venting again. Soon after that, frost began to appear on the exterior of its steel liquid oxygen and methane tanks, a telltale sign that some form of cryogenic testing was ongoing. Based on a distinct lack of activity at the nearby flare stack, SpaceX was using liquid oxygen (LOX) or liquid nitrogen (LN2) to verify that Starship performs as expected when filled with supercool propellant.
After initial venting and visible frost formation, SpaceX appeared to push forward, rapidly loading Starship Mk1 with LOX or LN2. This progress was easily visible thanks to the fact that the mass and pressure of all that cryogenic liquid made quick work of the slight imperfections on the exterior of Starship’s steel hull, turning the vehicle’s reflection from a speckled patchwork to an almost mirror-like finish. Roughly half an hour later, the otherwise peaceful scene was interrupted by the rapid failure of Starship Mk1’s upper LOX tank dome, instantly thrown several hundred feet into the air.
Seconds later, the crumpled upper half of Starship Mk1’s tank section appeared out of the clouds created and began hemorrhaging a huge volume of liquid oxygen, immediately boiling and vaporizing as it was exposed to the Earth’s comparatively white-hot atmosphere. Impressively, Starship appeared to remain functional after its top quite literally blew off, and the vehicle rapidly detanked and appeared to safe itself. Some ten minutes after the overpressure event, the freed liquid oxygen had boiled to nothing and Starship appeared to be quiet.
By all appearances, Starship Mk1 appeared to perform extremely well as an integrated system up to the point that its upper tank dome failed. The first frame from LabPadre’s stream with anything visibly amiss explicitly implicates the weld connecting the LOX dome to the cylindrical body of Starship’s LOX tank, point to a bad weld joint as the likeliest source of the failure. Although that hardware failure is unfortunate, Mk1’s loss will hopefully guide improvements in Starship’s design and manufacturing procedures.
Moving forward
Minutes after the anomaly was broadcast on several unofficial livestreams of SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk acknowledged Starship Mk1’s failure in a tweet, telegraphing a general lack of worry. Of note, Musk indicated that Mk1 was valuable mainly as a manufacturing pathfinder, entirely believable but also partially contradicting his September 2019 presentation, in which he pretty clearly stated that Mk1 would soon be launched to ~20 km to demonstrate Starship’s exotic new skydiver landing strategy.
Musk says that instead of repairing Starship Mk1, SpaceX’s Boca Chica team will move directly to Starship Mk3, a significantly more advanced design that has benefitted from the numerous lessons learned from building and flying Starhopper and fabricating Starship Mk1. The first Starship Mk3 ring appears to have already been prepared, but SpaceX’s South Texas focus has clearly been almost entirely on preparing Starship Mk1 for wet dress rehearsal, static fire, and flight tests. After today’s failure, it sounds like Mk1 will most likely be retired early and replaced as soon as possible by Mk3.
Above all else, the most important takeaway from today’s Starship Mk1 anomaly is that the vehicle was a very early prototype and SpaceX likely wants to have vehicle failures occur on the ground or in-flight. As long as no humans are at risk, pushing Starship to failure (or suffering unplanned failures like today’s) can only serve to benefit and improve the vehicle’s design, especially when the failed hardware can be recovered intact (ish) and carefully analyzed.
A step further, SpaceX is simultaneously building a second (and third) Starship prototype at its companion Cocoa, Florida facilities, and Starship Mk2 is nearly finished. Coincidentally, technicians installed its last tank dome – the same dome that failed on Mk1 – just days ago, and any insight that the Boca Chica team can gather from Mk1’s troubles will almost certainly be applied to Mk2, whether that means reinforcing its existing domes or fully replacing the upper dome with an improved design.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
