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.
Tesla Cybertruck is significantly different from traditional pickups on the market in a lot of ways. However, one feature that was recently modified with its interior was a highly requested characteristic that is present in other trucks, but was void from Cybertruck.
Tesla went with a five-seat configuration with Cybertruck: two in the front and three in the back. The spacious interior is matched with plenty of storage, especially up front, as a pass-through, center console, and other storage options, but some Tesla fans wanted something different: bench seating.
Bench seating is popular in many full-size pickups and allows three passengers to sit up front. The middle seat is usually accompanied by a fold-down storage unit with cupholders.
Tesla decided to opt for no bench seating up front, despite the fact that it equipped bench seating in the unveiling in 2019. Interior photos from the unveiling event from nearly six-and-a-half years ago show Tesla had originally planned to have a six-seat configuration.
This was adjusted after the company refined the design:
(Tesla Cybertruck interior configuration in 2019)
Despite Tesla abandoning this design, it does not mean owners were willing to accept it. One owner decided to modify their Tesla Cybertruck interior to equip that third seat between the driver’s and passenger’s thrones.
The fit is snug, and while it looks great, it is important to remember that this does not abide byregulations, as it would require an airbag to be technically legal. Please do not do this at home with your own Cybertruck:
-
- Credit: @blueskykites
-
- Credit: @blueskykites
-
- Credit: @blueskykites
The Cybertruck is a popular vehicle in terms of publicity, but its sales have been underwhelming since first delivered to customers back in 2023. It’s hard to believe it’s been out for two-and-a-half years, but despite this, Tesla has not been able to come through on its extensive order sheet.
This is mostly due to price, as Cybertruck was simply not as affordable as Tesla originally planned. Its three configurations were initially priced at $39,990, $49,990, and $69,990. At release, Cybertruck was priced above $100,000.
This priced out many of those who had placed orders, which is the main reason Cybertruck has not lived up to its expectations in terms of sales. The adjustments to the specific features, like the removal of the bench seat, likely did not impact sales as much as pricing did.
This modification shows some creativity by Tesla owners, but also shows that the Cybertruck could always be the subject of a potential refresh to include some of these features. Tesla routinely adjusts its vehicle designs every few years, so maybe the Cybertruck could get something like this if it chooses to refresh its all-electric pickup.
Elon Musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
“And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface,” Musk said.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk dropped a massive bomb about the Cybercab, which is the company’s fully autonomous ride-hailing vehicle that will enter production later this year.
The Cybercab was unveiled back in October 2024 at the company’s “We, Robot” event in Los Angeles, and is among the major catalysts for the company’s growth in the coming years. It is expected to push Tesla into a major growth phase, especially as the automaker is transitioning into more of an AI and Robotics company than anything else.
The Cybercab will enable completely autonomous ride-hailing for Tesla, and although its other vehicles will also be capable of this technology, the Cybercab is slightly different. It will have no steering wheel or pedals, and will allow two occupants to travel from Point A to Point B with zero responsibilities within the car.
Tesla shares epic 2025 recap video, confirms start of Cybercab production
Details on the Cybercab are pretty face value at this point: we know Tesla is enabling 1-2 passengers to ride in it at a time, and this strategy was based on statistics that show most ride-hailing trips have no more than two occupants. It will also have in-vehicle entertainment options accessible from the center touchscreen.
It will also have wireless charging capabilities, which were displayed at “We, Robot,” and there could be more features that will be highly beneficial to riders, offering a full-fledged autonomous experience.
Musk dropped a big hint that there is much more to the Cybercab than what we know, as a post on X said that “there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface.”
And there is so much to this car that is not obvious on the surface
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 2, 2026
As the Cybercab is expected to enter production later this year, Tesla is surely going to include a handful of things they have not yet revealed to the public.
Musk seems to be indicating that some of the features will make it even more groundbreaking, and the idea is to enable a truly autonomous experience from start to finish for riders. Everything from climate control to emergency systems, and more, should be included with the car.
It seems more likely than not that Tesla will make the Cybercab its smartest vehicle so far, as if its current lineup is not already extremely intelligent, user-friendly, and intuitive.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Q4 delivery numbers are better than they initially look: analyst
The Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Longtime Tesla analyst and Deepwater Asset Management Managing Partner Gene Munster has shared his insights on Tesla’s Q4 2025 deliveries. As per the analyst, Tesla’s numbers are actually better than they first appear.
Munster shared his thoughts in a post on his website.
Normalized December Deliveries
Munster noted that Tesla delivered 418k vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2025, slightly below Street expectations of 420k but above the whisper number of 415k. Tesla’s reported 16% year-over-year decline, compared to +7% in September, is largely distorted by the timing of the tax credit expiration, which pulled forward demand.
“Taking a step back, we believe September deliveries pulled forward approximately 55k units that would have otherwise occurred in December or March. For simplicity, we assume the entire pull-forward impacted the December quarter. Under this assumption, September growth would have been down ~5% absent the 55k pull-forward, a Deepwater estimate tied to the credit’s expiration.
“For December deliveries to have declined ~5% year over year would imply total deliveries of roughly 470k. Subtracting the 55k units pulled into September results in an implied December delivery figure of approximately 415k. The reported 418k suggests that, when normalizing for the tax credit timing, quarter-over-quarter growth has been consistently down ~5%. Importantly, this ~5% decline represents an improvement from the ~13% declines seen in both the March and June 2025 quarters.“
Tesla’s United States market share
Munster also estimated that Q4 as a whole might very well show a notable improvement in Tesla’s market share in the United States.
“Over the past couple of years, based on data from Cox Automotive, Tesla has been losing U.S. EV market share, declining to just under 50%. Based on data for October and November, Cox estimates that total U.S. EV sales were down approximately 35%, compared to Tesla’s just reported down 16% for the full quarter. For the first two months of the quarter, Cox reported Tesla market share of roughly a 65% share, up from under 50% in the September quarter.
“While this data excludes December, the quarter as a whole is likely to show a material improvement in Tesla’s U.S. EV market share.“
Tesla Cybertruck undergoes interior mod that many owners wanted
Tesla CEO Elon Musk drops massive bomb about Cybercab
