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.
News
Tesla Cybercab ramps Robotaxi public street testing as vehicle enters mass production queue
Recent sightings on public roads and growing fleet activity at Giga Texas signal Tesla’s accelerating push toward the Cybercab’s commercial launch.
Tesla Cybercab is being spotted with increasing frequency both on public roads and across the grounds of Gigafactory Texas, suggesting that the company’s road testing and validation program is ramping meaningfully ahead of mass production.
A total of 25 Cybercab units were recently observed across three separate locations at Giga Texas by drone observer Joe Tegtmeyer — with 14 metallic gold units parked in a tight formation outside the factory exit, nine more at the crash testing facility undergoing structural and safety validations, and two additional units at the west end-of-line area for final checks.
The activity on public roads is just as telling. The Cybercab was spotted testing on public roads for the first time last October, near Tesla’s Engineering Headquarters in Los Altos, California, marking a significant development in the vehicle’s progression toward commercial readiness. As expected at that early stage, a safety driver was present in the seat.
Since then, sightings have only become more frequent. Community observers on X have posted fresh footage of Cybercabs navigating public streets in Silicon Valley, with each new clip adding to a growing body of evidence that Tesla’s validation efforts are well underway. The production backdrop supports the momentum. Tesla’s production line at Giga Texas moved into a higher volume early in March, representing what observers are calling the largest single-day grouping of Cybercabs seen to date.
-
- Tesla Cybercab spotted in San Jose, CA testing on public roads with Robotaxi validation equipment [Credit: Nic Cruz Patane via X]
![Tesla Cybercab spotted testing on public roads in Los Gatos, CA - March 10, 2026 [Credit: Osmad Sarood via X]](https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/tesla-cybercab-public-road-testing-823x1024.jpg)
Tesla Cybercab spotted testing on public roads in Los Gatos, CA – March 10, 2026 [Credit: Osman Sarood via X]
Tesla ramps Cybercab test manufacturing ahead of mass production
Musk has also stated that Tesla is aiming for at least 2 million Cybercab units per year across more than one factory, with a potential ceiling of 4 million annually.
With testing activity on public roads accelerating and factory output visibly increasing week over week, the coming months at Giga Texas are set to be pivotal in determining how quickly Tesla can bring the Cybercab from validation to volume.
News
Tesla opens Supercharging Network to other EVs in new country
Tesla’s Supercharging infrastructure is the most robust in the world, and it has done a wonderful job of keeping things up and running for the millions of owners out there. As it expanded access to non-Tesla EVs a couple years back, it has still managed to keep things pretty steady, although the need for more charging is apparent.
Tesla has started opening its Supercharging Network, which is the most expansive in the world, to other EVs in a new country for the first time.
After expanding its Supercharging offerings to other car companies in the United States a few years ago, Tesla is still making the move in other markets, as it aims to make EV ownership easier for everyone, regardless of what manufacturer a consumer chose to purchase from.
Tesla’s Supercharging infrastructure is the most robust in the world, and it has done a wonderful job of keeping things up and running for the millions of owners out there. As it expanded access to non-Tesla EVs a couple years back, it has still managed to keep things pretty steady, although the need for more charging is apparent.
Tesla just added a cool new feature for leaving your charger at home or even leaving the Supercharger pic.twitter.com/iw0SDrWuX6
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 10, 2026
Now, Tesla is expanding access to the Supercharger Network to non-Tesla EVs in Malaysia. The automaker just opened up a charging stie at the Pavilion KL Mall in Kuala Lumpur to non-Tesla owners, giving them eight additional Superchargers to utilize with a charging speed of up to 250 kW.
Tesla is also opening up the four-Supercharger site in Shah Alam, a four-Supercharger site at the IOI City Mall, and a six-Supercharger site in Gamuda Cove Township.
Electrive first reported the opening of these Superchargers in Malaysia.
The initiative from Tesla helps make EV ownership much simpler for those who only have access to third-party charging solutions or at-home charging. While at-home charging is the most advantageous, it is not an end-all solution as every driver will eventually need to grab some range on the road.
Tesla has been offering its Superchargers to non-Tesla EVs in the United States since 2024, as Ford became the first company to gain access to the massive network early that year when CEO Elon Musk and Ford frontman Jim Farley announced it together. Since then, Tesla has offered its chargers to nearly every EV maker, as companies like Rivian and Lucid, and even legacy car companies like General Motors have gained access.
It’s best for everyone to have the ability to use Tesla Superchargers, but there are of course some growing pains.
Charging cables are built to cater to Tesla owners, so pull-in Superchargers are most advantageous for non-Tesla EVs currently, but the company’s V4 Superchargers, which are not as plentiful in the U.S. quite yet, do enable easier reach for those vehicles.
News
Tesla Semi expands pilot program to Texas logistics firm: here’s what they said
Mone said the Tesla Semi it put into its fleet for this test recorded 1.64 kWh per mile efficiency, beating Tesla’s official 1.7 kWh per mile target and delivering a massive leap over conventional diesel trucks.
Tesla has expanded its Semi pilot program to a new region, as it has made it to Texas to be tested by logistics from Mone Transport. With the Semi entering production this year, Tesla is getting even more valuable data regarding the vehicle and its efficiency, which will help companies cut expenditures.
Mone Transport operates in Texas and on the Southern border, and it specializes in cross-border U.S.-Mexico freight operations. After completing some rigorous testing, Mone shared public results, which stand out when compared to efficiency metrics offered by diesel vehicles.
“Mone Transport recently had the opportunity to put the Tesla Semi to the test, and we’re thrilled with the results! Over 4,700 miles of operations at 1.64 kWh/mile in our Texas operation. We’re committed to providing zero-emission transportation to our customers!” the company said in a post on X.
🚨 Mone Transport just recorded an extremely impressive Tesla Semi test:
1.64 kWh per mile over 4,700 miles! https://t.co/xwS2dDeomP pic.twitter.com/oLZHoQgXsu
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 10, 2026
Mone said the Tesla Semi it put into its fleet for this test recorded 1.64 kWh per mile efficiency, beating Tesla’s official 1.7 kWh per mile target and delivering a massive leap over conventional diesel trucks.
Comparable Class 8 diesel semis, typically achieving 6-7 miles per gallon, consume roughly 5.5 kWh per mile in energy-equivalent terms, meaning the Semi uses three to four times less energy while also producing zero tailpipe emissions.
Tesla Semi undergoes major redesign as dedicated factory preps for deliveries
The performance of the Tesla Semi in Mone Transport’s testing aligns with data from other participants in the pilot program. ArcBest’s ABF Freight Division logged 4,494 miles over three weeks in 2025, averaging 1.55 kWh per mile across varied routes, including a grueling 7,200-foot Donner Pass climb. The truck “generally matched the performance of its diesel counterparts,” the carrier said.
PepsiCo, which operates the largest known Semi fleet, recorded 1.7 kWh per mile in North American Council for Freight Efficiency testing. Additional pilots showed similar gains: DHL hit 1.72 kWh per mile, and Saia achieved 1.73 kWh per mile.
These metrics underscore the Semi’s ability to slash operating costs through superior efficiency, lower maintenance, and zero-emission operation. As charging infrastructure scales and production ramps toward 2026 targets, participants like Mone Transport are proving electric semis can seamlessly integrate into freight networks, accelerating the industry’s shift to sustainable, high-performance trucking.
Tesla continues to prep for a more widespread presence of the Semi in the coming months as it recently launched the first public Semi Megacharger site in Los Angeles. It is working on building out infrastructure for regional runs on the West Coast initially, with plans to expand this to the other end of the country in the coming years.
Tesla Cybercab ramps Robotaxi public street testing as vehicle enters mass production queue
Tesla opens Supercharging Network to other EVs in new country
