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.
Tesla deliveries got a big boost in expectations from Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, who believes the company will report some stronger-than-expected numbers when the second quarter comes to an end in the coming weeks.
Goldman Sachs has raised its vehicle delivery forecast for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) in the second quarter of 2026, signaling growing confidence in the electric vehicle leader’s near-term momentum despite mixed market signals. Analyst Mark Delaney lifted the bank’s Q2 estimate to 420,000 units from a previous 405,000, surpassing the Visible Alpha consensus estimate of 400,000.
The upward revision stems from stronger-than-expected sales data across key regions. Europe stands out with projected year-over-year growth of 85-90 percent, driven by robust demand for Tesla’s Model Y and refreshed offerings. China posted high single-digit gains, while markets like South Korea and Australia also contributed positive momentum. These gains help offset mid-teens declines in U.S. deliveries through May, where broader EV market headwinds and competition persist.
Goldman extended its optimism to the full year, increasing its 2026 delivery projection to 1.73 million vehicles from 1.72 million. Longer-term forecasts remain unchanged, with 1.88 million units expected in 2027 and 1.96 million in 2028. The bank also nudged its 2026 earnings-per-share estimate higher to $1.35 from $1.30, reflecting anticipated margin benefits from higher volumes and operational efficiencies.
Despite these positive adjustments, Goldman maintained its Neutral rating and $375 price target on Tesla shares. At current trading levels near $411, the stock sits about 8-9 percent above the target, highlighting ongoing valuation concerns even as delivery momentum builds. Tesla’s Q1 2026 deliveries totaled 358,023 units, setting a baseline for recovery expectations in the current period.
This update arrives as Tesla prepares to report official Q2 figures shortly after June 30. Investors and analysts will closely watch not only headline delivery numbers but also regional breakdowns, average selling prices, and progress on energy storage deployments and autonomous technology initiatives.
The move by Goldman Sachs underscores a broader narrative for Tesla: while legacy auto markets face softening demand and tariff uncertainties, Tesla’s global footprint and product pipeline provide resilience. Europe’s surge reflects pent-up demand and policy support for EVs, while China’s steady growth highlights Tesla’s competitive positioning against local rivals.
Tesla still has its work cut out for it, including U.S. price sensitivity and intensifying competition. Yet Goldman’s revision adds to a series of analyst notes suggesting Q2 could mark a turning point. As Tesla pushes toward higher production rates at facilities in Fremont, Shanghai, and Berlin, sustained execution will be key to validating these higher forecasts.
We have said numerous times that deliveries are becoming a less important metric in the grand scheme of things, as AI truly takes precedence in the company’s thesis.
For Tesla bulls, the Goldman note reinforces faith in underlying demand trends. For skeptics, the unchanged rating serves as a reminder that delivery beats alone may not immediately resolve valuation debates in a high-interest-rate environment. Tesla’s stock reaction will likely hinge on the official numbers and management commentary in the coming weeks.
SpaceX has exercised its option to acquire Cursor, the innovative AI coding company, in an all-stock transaction valued at $60 billion. The deal, announced on June 16, marks a significant step in SpaceX’s expansion into advanced artificial intelligence, building on months of close collaboration between the companies.
Cursor, officially operated by Anysphere, Inc., is an AI-native code editor and coding agent designed to transform software development. Founded in 2022 by a group of MIT graduates in San Francisco, Cursor builds on the familiar foundation of Visual Studio Code but integrates powerful AI capabilities directly into the core experience.
Unlike traditional code editors or simple extensions, Cursor functions as a full “coding agent” that turns natural-language instructions into actionable code.
SpaceX has exercised the option to acquire @cursor_ai in an all-stock transaction with the goal of building the world’s most useful AI models.
For the past few months, SpaceXAI has been jointly training a model with Cursor, which will be released in Cursor and Grok Build soon.… https://t.co/X5mepgXgjJ
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) June 16, 2026
Developers interact with Cursor through features like its Composer agent, which can search entire codebases, edit multiple files, run terminal commands, debug issues, and complete complex multi-step programming tasks autonomously.
Users describe high-level goals, such as “build a scalable API endpoint with authentication,” and the AI plans, implements, tests, and refines the solution while the human oversees decisions. Additional tools include advanced autocomplete (Tab), context-aware chat, and infrastructure for handling billions of daily requests.
The platform has gained considerable traction, surpassing $3 billion in annual recurring revenue by early 2026 and earning adoption by over half of the Fortune 500 companies. Its agentic approach accelerates development dramatically, allowing engineers to focus on architecture and creativity rather than repetitive coding.
The acquisition integrates Cursor’s leading product, expert team of roughly 300 engineers, and distribution network among top software developers with SpaceX’s unparalleled computational resources. SpaceX’s Colossus supercomputer, equivalent to a million H100 GPUs, has already powered joint training of next-generation models. These models are expected to launch soon within Cursor and SpaceX’s Grok Build environment.
This combination positions SpaceX to develop the world’s most capable AI systems for coding and knowledge work. Access to Cursor’s real-world usage data from millions of professional developers provides unparalleled feedback loops for model improvement. Training on Colossus enables rapid iteration on massive datasets, potentially creating AI that outperforms current leaders in reliability, context handling, and complex reasoning.
For SpaceX, the benefits extend far beyond software tools. Rocket engineering, satellite constellation management, autonomous flight systems, and Starship development involve millions of lines of highly specialized, safety-critical code.
Cursor’s AI agents, supercharged by proprietary models trained on SpaceX’s domain expertise, could slash development timelines, reduce errors, and enable faster innovation cycles. This vertical integration of AI tooling strengthens SpaceX’s competitive edge in both aerospace and the broader AI race, complementing its xAI initiatives.
The deal reflects the exploding value of AI-native developer platforms. By owning Cursor outright, SpaceX secures a strategic talent pool and product pipeline that will accelerate internal projects while potentially offering enhanced tools to the wider engineering community. As AI continues reshaping software creation, this acquisition underscores SpaceX’s commitment to leveraging cutting-edge technology for ambitious goals, from Mars colonization to global connectivity.
Tesla’s Cybercab has taken a significant step toward production with new technical details emerging from 2026 EPA certification documents.
The filings, which include a Certificate of Conformity issued in late May, provide the most comprehensive public look yet at the purpose-built autonomous vehicle designed for high-volume, low-cost ride-hailing operations.
At its core, the Cybercab is a front-wheel-drive electric vehicle powered by a single 163 kW (219 horsepower) AC permanent magnet motor. Despite its modest output, prioritizing efficiency and cost over neck-snapping acceleration, the vehicle boasts a strong power-to-weight ratio thanks to its lightweight curb weight of 3,113 pounds and a GVWR of 3,730 pounds.
It operates on a 326-volt electrical architecture with a compact ~48 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The standout revelation is the vehicle’s exceptional efficiency, which Tesla has routinely flexed in the past.
EPA lab tests list an equivalent all-electric range of 418 miles combined and 375 miles on the highway. Tesla has previously targeted around 300 miles of real-world range, and analysts expect the final EPA-rated figure to land near 280-300 miles after adjustment factors.
At a certified 165 Wh/mi in earlier testing, the Cybercab is reportedly the most efficient EV ever produced, significantly outperforming vehicles like the Lucid Air Pure.
New information about @Tesla‘s Cybercab has been revealed in public EPA documents.
• Front-wheel drive
• Battery capacity: ~48 kWh
• 219 horsepower
• Curb weight: 3,113 lbs
• GVWR: 3,730 lbs
• Motor power: 163kW
• Voltage: 326vEquivalent All Electric Range is listed at… pic.twitter.com/D4gkJJTj25
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
This efficiency stems from deliberate design choices tailored for robotaxi duty. The two-seater features a highly aerodynamic shape, minimal weight, which is aided by structural battery integration of what are likely 4680 cells, and no steering wheel or pedals in its fully autonomous configuration.
For ride-hailing fleets, where average trips are short, and can be just five or ten miles, the smaller battery enables faster charging cycles, lower material costs, and reduced vehicle price, a key to Tesla’s goal of a ~$30,000 production cost.
Implications for Autonomous Mobility
These specs underscore Tesla’s strategy: maximize utilization and minimize operating expenses. A ~48 kWh pack could support dozens of short rides per charge, with energy costs potentially dropping below 20 cents per mile at scale. Front-wheel drive simplifies manufacturing and maintenance compared to dual-motor AWD setups in passenger Teslas.
The 219 hp motor provides ample performance for urban and highway speeds without excess, addressing questions about why such power is needed in a “slow” autonomous vehicle. Quick merges and hill climbing still matter for safety and passenger comfort.
Production has already begun at Giga Texas, with EPA certification clearing the path for U.S. deployment. While unsupervised Full Self-Driving remains the critical hurdle, these details paint a compelling picture of a vehicle engineered from the ground up for the robotaxi future: affordable to build, cheap to run, and capable of delivering strong range on a fraction of the battery capacity found in today’s EVs.
As Tesla ramps toward volume output, the Cybercab could reshape urban transportation economics.
Tesla deliveries get a big boost in expectations from Wall Street
SpaceX makes first acquisition post-IPO with coding leader Cursor
