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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX to launch Starlink V2 satellites on Starship starting 2027
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls.
SpaceX is looking to start launching its next-generation Starlink V2 satellites in mid-2027 using Starship.
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls during remarks at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.
“With Starship, we’ll be able to deploy the constellation very quickly,” Nicolls stated. “Our goal is to deploy a constellation capable of providing global and contiguous coverage within six months, and that’s roughly 1,200 satellites.”
Nicolls added that once Starship is operational, it will be capable of launching approximately 50 of the larger, more powerful Starlink satellites at a time, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
The initial deployment of roughly 1,200 next-generation satellites is intended to establish global and contiguous coverage. After that phase, SpaceX plans to continue expanding the system to reach “truly global coverage, including the polar regions,” Nicolls said.
Currently, all Starlink satellites are launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The next-generation fleet will rely on Starship, which remains in development following a series of test flights in 2025. SpaceX is targeting its next Starship test flight, featuring an upgraded version of the rocket, as soon as this month.
Starlink is currently the largest satellite network in orbit, with nearly 10,000 satellites deployed. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates the business could generate approximately $9 billion in revenue for SpaceX in 2026.
Nicolls also confirmed that SpaceX is rebranding its direct-to-cell service as Starlink Mobile.
The service currently operates with 650 satellites capable of connecting directly to smartphones and has approximately 10 million monthly active users. SpaceX expects that figure to exceed 25 million monthly active users by the end of 2026.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s xAI and X to pay off $17.5B debt in full: report
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Elon Musk’s social platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI are reportedly preparing to repay approximately $17.5 billion in outstanding debt in full.
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Morgan Stanley, which arranged the debt financing for both companies, has reportedly informed existing lenders that X and xAI plan to pay back the full amount of the $17.5 billion debt. Bloomberg’s sources did not disclose where the capital for the repayment would be coming from.
X, formerly known as Twitter, assumed roughly $12.5 billion in debt during Musk’s acquisition of the company. xAI separately borrowed about $5 billion through bonds and loans last June. The two firms merged last year under xAI Holdings.
Bloomberg noted that portions of the debt are relatively recent and may carry early repayment penalties. xAI’s $3 billion in high-yield bonds are expected to be redeemed at 117 cents on the dollar, reflecting a premium since the debt was expected to stay outstanding for at least two years.
X has been servicing tens of millions of dollars in monthly debt payments, while xAI has reportedly been burning approximately $1 billion in cash per month as it invests heavily in data centers, chips, and AI talent. That being said, xAI also concluded a funding round in January, where it raised $20 billion of new equity.
The repayment plans come as Musk consolidates several of his businesses. SpaceX recently acquired xAI, making it a subsidiary as the company explores plans for space-based data centers. The combined entity has been valued at approximately $1.25 trillion.
Bloomberg previously reported that SpaceX is targeting a confidential IPO filing as soon as this month, potentially positioning the private space firm for a public listing later this year. Representatives for Morgan Stanley declined to comment, and X and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin head calls out Handelsblatt’s claimed 2025 production figures
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
Tesla Gigafactory Berlin’s plant manager has publicly pushed back against recent reporting by German business publication Handelsblatt, which cited reportedly erroneous data about the factory’s production figures and financial performance.
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
In his LinkedIn post, Thierig called out Handelsblatt’s claim that 149,000 Model Y vehicles were produced at Giga Berlin in 2025. He noted that “the article is simply filled from front to back with false information and claims!
“I have to set the record straight here! In the last article about Tesla in Grünheide, the Handelsblatt speaks e.g. of 149,000 Model Ys built in 2025. WRONG!
“In 2025, we again produced over 200,000 vehicles. And this despite the fact that we stopped production in Q1 for the changeover to the new Model Y and then ramped it up again to 5,000 units per week over several weeks,” Thierig wrote.
He added that production increased each quarter in 2025 compared to the prior quarter and stated that more than 700,000 Model Y units have been produced at Grünheide since manufacturing began in 2022. For the first quarter of 2026, he stated that the factory is planning another production increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025.
Thierig also questioned Handelsblatt’s reported 0.74% profit margin, writing that how the publication calculated the figure “remains reserved for their secret ‘calculation skills.’”
Beyond production data, Thierig highlighted Tesla’s broader footprint in Germany, stating that the company has invested more than €5 billion in Grünheide since 2020 and created nearly 11,000 permanent, above-tariff jobs. He added that Tesla is currently investing nearly €100 million into battery cell production at the site, which is expected to generate several hundred additional positions.
In a follow-up comment, Thierig noted that he did communicate with the publication’s editor-in-chief in an effort to “start fresh,” but he was informed that Handelsblatt’s current approach works just fine.
“Last year, I spoke to a representative of the Handelsblatt editor-in-chief and suggested that we “start anew” again. Handelsblatt turned down this offer on the grounds that their current approach works well for them,” Thierig noted.
Sönke Iwersen, Head of Investigative Research at Handelsblatt, responded to Thierig’s post, stating that the newspaper’s figures were based on Tesla’s own annual financial statements for the Grünheide entity.
He cited reported 2024 revenue of €7.68 billion, operating profit of €156.8 million, and net income after taxes of €55.6 million. Iwersen also referenced prior public comments from Elon Musk about Cybertruck demand, noting the gap between reported pre-orders and subsequent annual sales figures.
He also stated that the works council election eligibility figures Giga Berlin had dropped to 10,703 employees today from 12,415 two years ago.
“As far as production figures are concerned, these are figures from the data service provider Inovev. This is also stated in the article. Please compare this with Elon Musk’s information on demand for the Cybertruck. According to Musk, there were one million pre-orders. In the first year, 39,000 units were sold, in the second year 20,000. How can this be explained? With a million pre-orders?
“You yourself have repeatedly pointed out in recent months that no jobs would be cut in Grünheide because Tesla is different from the competition. Now a new works council is being elected in Grünheide. 10,703 people are eligible to vote. Two years ago, 12,415 people were eligible to vote. So there were exactly 1712 fewer from 2024 to 2026,” Iwersen wrote.
SpaceX to launch Starlink V2 satellites on Starship starting 2027
Elon Musk’s xAI and X to pay off $17.5B debt in full: report
