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 already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
That scenario was discussed during the company’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, when executives explained why the majority of Robotaxi rides will only involve one or two people.
Tesla already has the pieces in place for a full Robotaxi service that works regardless of passenger count, even if the backbone of the program is a small autonomous two-seater.
That scenario was discussed during the company’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, when executives explained why the majority of Robotaxi rides will only involve one or two people.
Two-seat Cybercabs make perfect sense
During the Q&A portion of the call, Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy pointed out that more than 90% of vehicle miles traveled today involve two or fewer passengers. This, the executive noted, directly informed the design of the Cybercab.
“Autonomy and Cybercab are going to change the global market size and mix quite significantly. I think that’s quite obvious. General transportation is going to be better served by autonomy as it will be safer and cheaper. Over 90% of vehicle miles traveled are with two or fewer passengers now. This is why we designed Cybercab that way,” Moravy said.
Elon Musk expanded on the point, emphasizing that there is no fallback for Tesla’s bet on the Cybercab’s autonomous design. He reiterated that the autonomous two seater’s production is expected to start in April and noted that, over time, Tesla expects to produce far more Cybercabs than all of its other vehicles combined.
“Just to add to what Lars said there. The point that Lars made, which is that 90% of miles driven are with one or two passengers or one or two occupants, essentially, is a very important one… So this is clearly, there’s no fallback mechanism here. It’s like this car either drives itself or it does not drive… We would expect over time to make far more CyberCabs than all of our other vehicles combined. Given that 90% of distance driven or distance being distance traveled exactly, no longer driving, is one or two people,” Musk said.
Tesla’s robotaxi lineup is already here
The more interesting takeaway from the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call is the fact that Tesla does not need the Cybercab to serve every possible passenger scenario, simply because the company already has a functional Robotaxi model that scales by vehicle type.
The Cybercab will handle the bulk of the Robotaxi network’s trips, but for groups that need three or four seats, the Model Y fills that role. For higher-end or larger-family use cases, the extended-wheelbase Model Y L could cover five or six occupants, provided that Elon Musk greenlights the vehicle for North America. And for even larger groups or commercial transport, Tesla has already unveiled the Robovan, which could seat over ten people.
Rather than forcing one vehicle to satisfy every use case, Tesla’s approach mirrors how transportation works today. Different vehicles will be used for different needs, while unifying everything under a single autonomous software and fleet platform.
News
Tesla Cybercab spotted with interesting charging solution, stimulating discussion
The port is located in the rear of the vehicle and features a manual door and latch for plug-in, and the video shows an employee connecting to a Tesla Supercharger.
Tesla Cybercab units are being tested publicly on roads throughout various areas of the United States, and a recent sighting of the vehicle’s charging port has certainly stimulated some discussions throughout the community.
The Cybercab is geared toward being a fully-autonomous vehicle, void of a steering wheel or pedals, only operating with the use of the Full Self-Driving suite. Everything from the driving itself to the charging to the cleaning is intended to be operated autonomously.
But a recent sighting of the vehicle has incited some speculation as to whether the vehicle might have some manual features, which would make sense, but let’s take a look:
🚨 Tesla Cybercab charging port is in the rear of the vehicle!
Here’s a great look at plugging it in!!
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 29, 2026
The port is located in the rear of the vehicle and features a manual door and latch for plug-in, and the video shows an employee connecting to a Tesla Supercharger.
Now, it is important to remember these are prototype vehicles, and not the final product. Additionally, Tesla has said it plans to introduce wireless induction charging in the future, but it is not currently available, so these units need to have some ability to charge.
However, there are some arguments for a charging system like this, especially as the operation of the Cybercab begins after production starts, which is scheduled for April.
Wireless for Operation, Wired for Downtime
It seems ideal to use induction charging when the Cybercab is in operation. As it is for most Tesla owners taking roadtrips, Supercharging stops are only a few minutes long for the most part.
The Cybercab would benefit from more frequent Supercharging stops in between rides while it is operating a ride-sharing program.
Tesla wireless charging patent revealed ahead of Robotaxi unveiling event
However, when the vehicle rolls back to its hub for cleaning and maintenance, standard charging, where it is plugged into a charger of some kind, seems more ideal.
In the 45-minutes that the car is being cleaned and is having maintenance, it could be fully charged and ready for another full shift of rides, grabbing a few miles of range with induction charging when it’s out and about.
Induction Charging Challenges
Induction charging is still something that presents many challenges for companies that use it for anything, including things as trivial as charging cell phones.
While it is convenient, a lot of the charge is lost during heat transfer, which is something that is common with wireless charging solutions. Even in Teslas, the wireless charging mat present in its vehicles has been a common complaint among owners, so much so that the company recently included a feature to turn them off.
Production Timing and Potential Challenges
With Tesla planning to begin Cybercab production in April, the real challenge with the induction charging is whether the company can develop an effective wireless apparatus in that short time frame.
It has been in development for several years, but solving the issue with heat and energy loss is something that is not an easy task.
In the short-term, Tesla could utilize this port for normal Supercharging operation on the Cybercab. Eventually, it could be phased out as induction charging proves to be a more effective and convenient option.
News
Tesla confirms that it finally solved its 4680 battery’s dry cathode process
The suggests the company has finally resolved one of the most challenging aspects of its next-generation battery cells.
Tesla has confirmed that it is now producing both the anode and cathode of its 4680 battery cells using a dry-electrode process, marking a key breakthrough in a technology the company has been working to industrialize for years.
The update, disclosed in Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 update letter, suggests the company has finally resolved one of the most challenging aspects of its next-generation battery cells.
Dry cathode 4680 cells
In its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter, Tesla stated that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process. The confirmation addresses long-standing questions around whether Tesla could bring its dry cathode process into sustained production.
The disclosure was highlighted on X by Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, who wrote that “both electrodes use our dry process.”
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept during its Battery Day presentation in 2020, pitching it as a way to simplify production, reduce factory footprint, lower costs, and improve energy density. While Tesla has been producing 4680 cells for some time, the company had previously relied on more conventional approaches for parts of the process, leading to questions about whether a full dry-electrode process could even be achieved.
4680 packs for Model Y
Tesla also revealed in its Q4 and FY 2025 Update Letter that it has begun producing battery packs for certain Model Y vehicles using its in-house 4680 cells. As per Tesla:
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks.”
The timing is notable. With Tesla preparing to wind down Model S and Model X production, the Model Y and Model 3 are expected to account for an even larger share of the company’s vehicle output. Ensuring that the Model Y can be equipped with domestically produced 4680 battery packs gives Tesla greater flexibility to maintain production volumes in the United States, even as global battery supply chains face increasing complexity.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Tesla Cybercab spotted with interesting charging solution, stimulating discussion
