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 has updated its Robotaxi app so riders can pick which vehicle they want before they book. The latest in-app screens now show two options side by side: the two-seat Cybercab and the four-seat Model Y.
A screenshot circulating Thursday shows the change in practice. In Austin, a rider could choose a gold Cybercab for two people or a Model Y for four. Tesla’s updated description calls Cybercab “our first purpose-built autonomous vehicle,” designed for safety, accessibility, and comfort, and says the lineup is available only through the Robotaxi app.
Tesla has updated their Robotaxi page in the App Store. You’ll be able to select if you want a Cybercab or Model Y Robotaxi.
“Our Robotaxi vehicle lineup now includes Cybercab, our first purpose-built autonomous vehicle. Designed for safety, accessibility and comfort, Cybercab… pic.twitter.com/Jff4klilDr
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 3, 2026
The distinction is more than cosmetic, and it’s important to note that Robotaxi refers to the platform, while Cybercab refers to a vehicle.
Model Y Robotaxis have carried the service since it opened in Austin in mid-2025 and later expanded to Dallas, Houston, and parts of Florida. Those vehicles are converted production SUVs that still have steering wheels and pedals.
Cybercab is different. It has no driver controls, butterfly doors, a low seat height meant to work with wheelchairs, extra trunk space for assistive devices, and braille on the handles. Tesla has registered dozens of the two-seaters with Texas regulators in the days leading up to its September 3 Austin event.
Giving riders a choice lets Tesla match the vehicle to the trip. Most rides involve one or two people, which is where Cybercab is meant to be cheaper and more efficient to operate. Groups of three or four, or anyone who needs more space, can still request a Model Y.
The same app handles booking, payment, cabin settings, and, on Cybercab, features such as phone-based door opening and in-cabin voice controls.
The update does not mean every city suddenly has both cars available. Cybercab support is listed for Austin first, and the purpose-built fleet is still small compared with the existing Model Y roster. Even so, the app change marks a shift from a single-vehicle pilot to a mixed fleet.
Riders can now choose between the compact, purpose-built robotaxi and the familiar SUV that launched the service.
Tesla Cybercab sightings are broadening far and wide, well outside of downtown Austin, Texas, with autonomy in focus as the company plans to launch the all-electric, two-seater this evening in the Lone Star State.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab to a small group of people this evening in a dedicated event in Austin, Texas. Public details on the event are relatively slim.
However, Tesla’s focus on Cybercab falls well outside of the downtown Austin area and is expanding well across the United States as things continue to move quickly with the company’s autonomous efforts in 2026. Today, various images of Cybercab fleets in interesting locations have started to circulate.
The most notable is a fleet of at least 20 Cybercabs at Miami International Airport in Florida. Spotted last night, the fleet is expansive and is indicative of a looming release of Cybercabs once regulatory boxes are checked off.
Tesla has already been operating the Robotaxi platform in Miami for several months, but this Cybercab fleet at the airport could be joining the ride-hailing platform as approvals arrive:
20+ Cybercabs spotted near Miami international airport. pic.twitter.com/ORLsw8yFhf
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 3, 2026
Another fleet of Cybercabs was spotted at the Devon, PA showroom just outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several Cybercab units testing around the Philadelphia Metro Area, which is interesting considering Tesla does not have any active Robotaxi geofence in Pennsylvania.
Cybercab at the Devon location in PA has multiplied over the weekend. Seeing a few more test vehicles in the lot 👀 pic.twitter.com/DhJT4P1EkU
— Billy (@billykyle) August 22, 2026
Philadelphia would be an ideal location to test ride-hailing due to its dense tourist population, large, sprawling city layout, and to compete with other ride-hailing companies that operate in the city.
Expansive fleets of Cybercabs will be popping up in and around major cities throughout the rest of the year, if we were betting on it. Tesla has made it obvious that the Cybercab rollout will be aggressive and fast-paced, but within reason. Tesla is still prioritizing safety, so these testing phases will likely go on for some period of time before more members of the public are able to snag a Cybercab for a personal chariot.
The Tesla Model Y L is arguably the most hyped trim of the all-electric crossover, other than the Performance configuration that comes with white-knuckle speed and sports car-level handling.
However, it is not all perfect. Tesla owners in China who took delivery of the Model Y L, denoted with an L to highlight its longer wheelbase, are experiencing what they are referring to as “collapsing” of the rear wheels, as suspension issues appear to be an issue with some of the builds.
🚨 Model Y L owners in China report rear suspension sag
• Six-seat long-wheelbase Y. Shanghai. On sale since August 2025
• Owners say the rear tire-to-arch gap shrinks after mileage or a full load. Some cases after about 9,000 km loaded. Others near 30,000 km
• Tesla service… pic.twitter.com/Lr6i5Tbi07— Joe Hansen (@joehansen) September 1, 2026
The gap between the wheel arch and tire has narrowed to the point that “not even a single finger” could fit, according to a report from Car News China. The failures are not tied to a specific mileage, as one owner said that after just 9,000 kilometers (5,600 miles), they noticed the suspension issue when their car was fully loaded.
Another one had the issue at 30,000 kilometers (18,640 miles) and noticed that the wheel gap shrank to two fingers, so not as drastic as the person who reported a similar issue at 9,000 km.
Tesla Model Y L is gaining momentum in China’s premium segment
Along with the visual recognition of the issue, others are saying the sagging is causing abnormal wear on the inside of the tires. Extra weight and instant torque already provide additional stress on the tires in electric vehicles during normal operation, so it is no surprise that this is another complaint.
There has been no recall issued by Tesla, and the company has not yet publicly acknowledged the issue.
Some are suggesting that owners use a “finger test” to self-diagnose whether there is an issue with the suspension. There should be four fingers between the tire and the wheel well; anything less than that starts to get dicey.
Tesla Robotaxi riders will face the best dilemma when booking a ride
Tesla Cybercab sightings broaden well outside of Austin with autonomy in focus
