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 Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city, and although the company has revealed plans to launch in six new metros this year, it has yet to establish a new location outside of Austin and the Bay Area of California, where it has operated since last Summer.
A lot full of Model Y vehicles was spotted in Henderson, a town just north of Las Vegas, but there seems to be more than just this hint indicating that the Sin City will be the next location to offer potentially driverless rides in a Tesla using its Full Self-Driving suite.
These Model Ys are not your typical vehicles, as they are fitted with hardware that is only on Robotaxis: a rear camera washer is the dead giveaway:
🚨 These rear camera washers are only present on Robotaxi vehicles
Maybe Las Vegas is the next city to get the Robotaxi suite 😀 https://t.co/my3da5L4zc pic.twitter.com/jYFQuX1j2E
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 17, 2026
The photos and video of the lot were taken by TheZacher on X, who spotted the Model Y fleet in the Henderson parking lot.
The rear camera washer is the main piece of evidence here that indicates Tesla could be looking to expand Robotaxi to Las Vegas, a major ride-hailing hot spot, as it is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the United States. Ride-sharing is a major industry in Vegas, especially for those who are staying off the Strip.
Tesla has also been extremely transparent that Vegas is on its radar for the Robotaxi fleet, as it revealed last year that it was one of five new U.S. cities that it planned to launch the ride-hailing service in this year.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi is heading to five new cities in the U.S.
The others were Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Miami.
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
It will also give Tesla a new benchmark against rival company Waymo, which has operated in Las Vegas for some time.
News
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
The Tesla Roadster is perhaps the most anticipated vehicle in the company’s history, but those who have been waiting anxiously for it will have to push their timelines back once again.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed that the company is once again pushing back the unveiling event that was originally planned for April 1. It will now take place “probably in late April.”
True.
New Roadster unveil probably in late April. https://t.co/NShZxpK5cI
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2026
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
There has been so much hype about the Roadster that people are right to be excited about the prospect of its existence.
Musk’s most recent rumblings about the vehicle came last Fall, when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he once again hinted the car would be able to hover for a short period.
He said:
“Whether it’s good or bad, it will be unforgettable. My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars. I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one…I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveiling ever. [It will be unveiled] hopefully before the end of the year. You know, we need to make sure that it works. This is some crazy technology in this car. Let’s just put it this way: if you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it’s crazier than that.”
Additionally, he said the vehicle would not be something that would prioritize safety. Musk said that “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.” It’s made for speed and excitement, not for grocery-getting.
Elon Musk just said some crazy stuff about the Tesla Roadster
As the April 1 unveiling event that was originally planned was nearing without any communication to fans, media, or anyone who would potentially be in attendance, it seemed to be pretty obvious that Tesla was not ready to pull the trigger on the event quite yet.
There could be some last-minute things to finalize, or it could be something else. One thing is for certain, though: we are not super surprised that things were moved back.
Tesla has definitely been putting some things in motion for the Roadster. A few months back, Tesla started to ramp up hiring for the Roadster, and earlier in March, it submitted a patent application for a new seat design.
Elon Musk
Tesla named by U.S. Gov. in $4.3B battery deal for American-made cells
What began as an open secret in the energy industry was confirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday: Tesla is the buyer behind LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
What began as an open secret in the energy industry is becoming more real after the U.S. Department of the Interior named Tesla as the stakeholder in the LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
Tesla and LG Energy Solution are expanding their partnership to build a LFP prismatic battery cell manufacturing facility in Lansing, Michigan, launching production in 2027. The announcement, made as part of the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Summit results, ends months of speculation.
“American-made cells will power Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage systems produced in Houston, creating a robust domestic battery supply chain.”, notes a press release on the U.S. Department of the Interior website.
Tesla has long utilized China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (CATL), the world’s largest LFP battery maker, as one of its primary suppliers. That relationship made financial sense for years, considering that Chinese LFP cells were cheap, abundant, and reliable. But with escalated tariffs on Chinese imports and an increasingly growing Tesla Energy business that’s particularly reliant on LFP cells for products including its Megapack battery storage units designed for utilities and large-scale commercial projects.
The announcement of a deepened partnership between LG Energy Solution and Tesla has strategic logic for both parties. For Tesla, it secures a tariff-compliant, domestically produced battery supply for its fast-growing energy division. LGES, now producing LFP batteries in Michigan, becomes the only major supplier currently scaling U.S. production, outpacing rivals like Samsung SDI and SK On. LG Energy Solution’s Lansing plant, formerly known as Ultium Cells 3, was previously operated as a joint venture with General Motors. LGES acquired GM’s stake in May 2025 and now fully owns the site, with a production capacity of 50 GWh per year. LG Energy said the contract includes options to extend the supply period by up to seven years and boost volumes based on further consultations.
For the broader industry, the ripple effects are significant. This deal signals that domestic battery manufacturing can be financially viable and not just aspirational. Utilities, energy developers, and rival automakers will take note as American-made LFP supply becomes a competitive reality rather than a distant promise.
For consumers, the benefits will take time but are real. A more resilient, U.S.-based supply chain means fewer price shocks from trade disputes, more stable Megapack availability for the grid storage projects that reduce electricity costs, and long-term downward pressure on energy storage prices as domestic production scales.
Deliveries are set to begin in 2027 and run through mid-2030, and as grid storage demand accelerates, reliable, US-made battery supply is no longer a future ambition. It is becoming a core requirement of the country’s energy strategy.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
