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
Elon Musk makes a key Tesla Optimus detail official
“Since we are naming the singular, we will also name the plural, so Optimi it is,” Musk wrote on X.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk just made a key detail about Optimus official. In a post on X, the CEO clarified some key wording about Optimus, which should help the media and the public become more familiar with the humanoid robot.
Elon Musk makes Optimus’ plural term official
Elon Musk posted a number of Optimus-related posts on X this weekend. On Saturday, he stated that Optimus would be the Von Neumann probe, a machine that could eventually be capable of replicating itself. This capability, it seems, would be the key to Tesla achieving Elon Musk’s ambitious Optimus production targets.
Amidst the conversations about Optimus on X, a user of the social media platform asked the CEO what the plural term for the humanoid robot will be. As per Musk, Tesla will be setting the plural term for Optimus since the company also decided on the robot’s singular term. “Since we are naming the singular, we will also name the plural, so Optimi it is,” Musk wrote in his reply on X.
This makes it official. For media outlets such as Teslarati, numerous Optimus bots are now called Optimi. It rolls off the tongue pretty well, too.
Optimi will be a common sight worldwide
While Musk’s comment may seem pretty mundane to some, it is actually very important. Optimus is intended to be Tesla’s highest volume product, with the CEO estimating that the humanoid robot could eventually see annual production rates in the hundreds of millions, perhaps even more. Since Optimi will be a very common sight worldwide, it is good that people can now get used to terms describing the humanoid robot.
-->During the Tesla 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk stated that the humanoid robot will see “the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever,” starting with a one-million-Optimi-per-year production line at the Fremont Factory. Giga Texas would get an even bigger Optimus production line, which should be capable of producing tens of millions of Optimi per year.
News
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
Tesla will expand its factory shuttle service in Germany beginning January 4, adding direct rail trips from Berlin Ostbahnhof to Giga Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide.
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
New shuttle route
As noted in a report from rbb24, the updated service, which will start January 4, will run between the Berlin Ostbahnhof East Station and the Erkner Station at the Gigafactory Berlin complex. Tesla stated that the timetable mirrors shift changes for the facility’s employees, and similar to before, the service will be completely free. The train will offer six direct trips per day as well.
“The service includes six daily trips, which also cover our shift times. The trains will run between Berlin Ostbahnhof (with a stop at Ostkreuz) and Erkner station to the Gigafactory,” Tesla Germany stated.
Even with construction continuing at Fangschleuse and Köpenick stations, the company said the route has been optimized to maintain a predictable 35-minute travel time. The update follows earlier phases of Tesla’s “Giga Train” program, which initially connected Erkner to the factory grounds before expanding to Berlin-Lichtenberg.
-->Tesla pushes for majority rail commuting
Tesla began production at Grünheide in March 2022, and the factory’s workforce has since grown to around 11,500 employees, with an estimated 60% commuting from Berlin. The facility produces the Model Y, Tesla’s best-selling vehicle, for both Germany and other territories.
The company has repeatedly emphasized its goal of having more than half its staff use public transportation rather than cars, positioning the shuttle as a key part of that initiative. In keeping with the factory’s sustainability focus, Tesla continues to allow even non-employees to ride the shuttle free of charge, making it a broader mobility option for the area.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
The Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y once again led the field in a new real-world energy-consumption test conducted by China’s Autohome, outperforming numerous rival electric vehicles in controlled conditions.
The results, which placed both Teslas in the top two spots, prompted Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun to acknowledge Tesla’s efficiency advantage while noting that his company’s vehicles will continue refining its own models to close the gap.
Tesla secures top efficiency results
Autohome’s evaluation placed all vehicles under identical conditions, such as a full 375-kg load, cabin temperature fixed at 24°C on automatic climate control, and a steady cruising speed of 120 km/h. In this environment, the Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km, as noted in a Sina News report.
These figures positioned Tesla’s vehicles firmly at the top of the ranking and highlighted their continued leadership in long-range efficiency. The test also highlighted how drivetrain optimization, software management, and aerodynamic profiles remain key differentiators in high-speed, cold-weather scenarios where many electric cars struggle to maintain low consumption.
Xiaomi’s Lei Jun pledges to continue learning from Tesla
Following the results, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun noted that the Xiaomi SU7 actually performed well overall but naturally consumed more energy due to its larger C-segment footprint and higher specification. He reiterated that factors such as size and weight contributed to the difference in real-world consumption compared to Tesla. Still, the executive noted that Xiaomi will continue to learn from the veteran EV maker.
“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
-->Lei Jun has repeatedly described Tesla as the global benchmark for EV efficiency, previously stating that Xiaomi may require three to five years to match its leadership. He has also been very supportive of FSD, even testing the system in the United States.
Elon Musk makes a key Tesla Optimus detail official
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
