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.
After launching in Austin, Texas, last week, Tesla is looking to expand the Cybercab to new parts of the United States in an effort that will see the driverless, steering wheel-less, and pedal-less vehicle chauffeur people around as part of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service.
However, the expansion will go far beyond the United States, and CEO Elon Musk revealed he hopes Europe will be the next market where Cybercab will be operational.
Musk has publicly expressed hope that Tesla’s Cybercab robotaxi will reach Europe in the near future.
On September 8, Tesla’s Chief Executive quoted a German rider who had just completed a trip in Austin, Texas, and wrote that he hoped the vehicle would not take years to arrive in Germany. Musk replied with a short but notable message: “Hopefully soon in Europe too.”
Hopefully soon in Europe too https://t.co/vqQ69bLJuN
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2026
The comment arrived only days after Tesla opened Cybercab ride-hailing to the public in Austin. The two-seat vehicle has no steering wheel or pedals and relies entirely on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software. Early passengers have described the rides as quiet, smooth, and more stylish than competing robotaxis such as Waymo.
Austin is currently the only city where members of the public can hail a Cybercab through Tesla’s Robotaxi app. The initial fleet is small; Texas registration records show only a few dozen of the purpose-built vehicles on the road.
Tesla set to open Cybercab rides to the public, with no steering wheel or pedals
Tesla has also been operating a larger number of conventional Model Y robotaxis in the same area, but the Cybercab itself represents the company’s first dedicated, controls-free taxi design.
Europe presents a different regulatory picture. The European Union does not permit manufacturers to self-certify vehicles the way Tesla did in the United States.
Type-approval rules and a small-series limit of 1,500 automated vehicles per type per year apply across the bloc.
Supervised Full Self-Driving has gained provisional approval in several member states through national recognition of Dutch certification, yet unsupervised robotaxi operation remains a separate and more distant step. Tesla has not announced a European launch city, date, or approval pathway for the Cybercab.
Musk himself has previously cautioned that the company does not control European regulators. In an earnings call earlier in 2026, he noted that even supervised FSD took an “immense amount of time” to clear and that unsupervised service would be “somewhat at the mercy of the governments in Europe and the EU.”
The latest social-media remark therefore functions more as an expression of intent than a timetable.
If the Cybercab eventually reaches European streets, it would mark a significant expansion of Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions beyond the United States. For now, the vehicle remains an Austin-only experience, and the gap between Musk’s hope and actual deployment will be decided by regulators rather than by engineering alone.
Tesla Cybercab might have just rolled out to the public as it entered the company’s Robotaxi suite in Austin this past week. However, the vehicle might already be on its way to becoming even better, as the company is asking riders to describe what they’d like to see improved with the Cybercab.
Tesla sent a rider experience survey to Cybercab passengers only days after paid rides began in Austin. The questionnaire asks how satisfied riders were with the overall trip. Then it requests star ratings for availability and wait time, door functionality, vehicle touchscreen, mobile app experience, seat comfort, interior space, ride comfort, cleanliness, and cargo space.
A later section asks which features riders would most like to have and allows selection of up to three items from a list that includes heated seats, ventilated seats, fully reclining seats, a tray table, a wireless phone charger, a better sound system, and more storage. Respondents may also choose none of these or write in another idea. The survey closes with a recommendation score from zero to ten.
Tesla just sent out a Cybercab rider experience survey so you can give feedback to the team. pic.twitter.com/YsU5OYdAjW
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 8, 2026
This rapid request for input illustrates Tesla’s habit of treating early users as collaborators rather than mere customers. The company has long refined vehicles through software updates and hardware changes informed by real-world use across its passenger cars.
Collecting structured opinions so soon after commercial service started shows the same mindset applied to a purpose-built autonomous taxi. The questions themselves reveal an openness to cabin changes even after the first vehicles reached public streets, which is no surprise.
Tesla has always hoped to cater a great experience to anyone in its vehicles, which is why so many fan-requested features have made it into its vehicles.
Replies already circulating online favor reclining seats, tray tables, wireless charging, improved audio, and extra room when seats fold back.
Tesla Cybercabs narrowly miss deadly Amazon cargo plane crash
Those preferences point toward comfort upgrades that Tesla can implement in later production batches or through cabin revisions. Because the Cybercab is designed around software first principles, many requested amenities can arrive faster than in traditional automakers.
Tesla’s willingness to survey riders immediately after launch therefore makes near-term cabin and experience improvements likely as the team reviews responses and iterates toward a more refined robotaxi people will choose daily.
Tesla Cybertruck Lead Engineer Wes Morrill revealed the company has made several changes to the all-electric pickup, which he calls a “living thing, constantly evolving and improving.”
Cybertruck is manufactured at Tesla’s Gigafactory Texas just outside of Austin, and over the past few years, Tesla has continued to make small changes to the pickup to improve everything from cost, reliability, serviceablility, and manufacturability.
“The finish line isn’t getting to production. A product is a living thing, constantly evolving and improving,” Morrill added.
RELATED:
Tesla Cybertruck AWD is a steal at $60k, is it still at $75k? Full Review
Some of those changes are yet to be revealed, but perhaps the most notable one was the change Tesla made to the aero shield that sits underneath the truck. In the past, it was aluminum, but now the Cybertruck is using a self-reinforcing polypropylene.
Morrill said that the polypropylene is “stretched into fibers and then laminated into the form,” and is much more durable, much lighter, and significantly cheaper than aluminum when it is manufactured this way.
It also enabled some improvements in the geometry of the Cybertruck, improving the manufacturing around the bolts and edges, in addition to minor form changes. These all benefitted the Cybertruck in more ways than one: specifically with durability and improved drag.
I was surprised by how interested people were to find out we made a relatively benign change to the Cybertruck aero shield, a part of the car most people never even see. So I’ll share some more details.
Here are two photos, the left is one of the latest trucks off the… pic.twitter.com/F5cZo2CZKf
— Wes (@wmorrill3) September 7, 2026
Typically, Teslas are not necessarily identified by model year because these changes are fluid and occur when the company sees fit to implement them. It is not like other automotive companies, which usually make sweeping manufacturing changes when building a new model year.
Instead, Teslas are recognized by their “generation” or “era.” For example, those with a newer Model Y might refer to their car as a “Juniper.” This is the same with Model 3, as many refer to the new body style as the “Highland.”
Tesla’s manufacturing changes are proof of the company’s constant need to improve its products and move things forward with its vehicles. There is no need to drag one’s feet and wait until next year if the product can be made better right now, and that’s precisely what Tesla did with the Cybertruck.
Elon Musk hints at Tesla Cybercab’s next market
Tesla Cybercab improvements are already on the minds of company engineers
