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 Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
The Tesla Semi recently received a strange-but-understandable comparison from automotive enthusiast and former long-time late-night television show host Jay Leno.
In a recent interview with MotorTrend, legendary comedian and automotive enthusiast Jay Leno shared his impressions after driving Tesla’s long-range Semi truck, offering one of the most vivid descriptions to date:
“It’s like driving an office building.”
The comparison may seem quirky—office buildings evoke images of immobility rather than motion—but it aptly conveys the experience of commanding a massive 23,000-pound Class 8 electric truck that delivers sports-car acceleration.
Lenotested the production-spec Long Range model, which is rated for up to 500 miles of range. He was visibly impressed by its performance, noting how the enormous vehicle moves with surprising urgency.
“It’s as fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building,” he remarked. “It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 minutes. You’re saving on fuel costs. It seems quite good.”
Jay Leno in new interview on what it’s like to drive the @Tesla Semi:
“I was quite impressed with that. It’s a fast as a Tesla, but it’s like driving an office building. It’s this huge thing that moves like right now. You go 500 miles. You get 60% charge in 30 mins. You’re… pic.twitter.com/YU7tk6a6pV
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 8, 2026
The reaction highlights the cognitive dissonance at the core of the Tesla Semi. Traditional diesel semi-trucks are slow, noisy, and expensive to run. The Semi rewrites the rules with instant torque from its tri-motor electric powertrain, producing up to 800 kW.
Despite its size, the truck feels agile thanks to full electric steering assist, upgraded actuators borrowed from the Cybertruck, and a 48-volt electrical architecture that improves responsiveness and efficiency.
Tesla reports real-world energy consumption below 1.7 kWh per mile for the Long Range version. Megacharger stations can deliver a 60% charge in roughly 30 minutes, making the truck suitable for long-haul operations.
Additional features include an electric Power Take-Off (ePTO) capable of 25 kW for trailer refrigeration or other equipment, and a driver-focused cab with a central seating position for optimal visibility and a quiet, high-tech interior.
Fleet operators stand to benefit significantly from the economics. Diesel trucks often cost nearly one dollar per mile when including fuel, maintenance, and downtime.
Tesla projects the Semi can reduce operating costs to as low as 15 cents per mile through cheaper electricity, regenerative braking that minimizes brake wear, and reduced service requirements. While early deployments, like Pepsi’s, focused on shorter routes, the 500-mile variant targets cross-country applications.
Obstacles remain. A fully loaded tractor-trailer can reach 80,000 pounds, which reduces real-world range compared to the unloaded test conditions. Building out a nationwide Megacharger network will be essential for broader adoption. The Semi also carries a higher upfront price than conventional diesels, though total cost of ownership and available incentives frequently tip the scales in its favor over time.
Tesla Semi hauls fresh Cybercab batch as Robotaxi era takes hold
Leno’s “office building” description resonates because it captures the unexpected thrill of piloting something so large yet so capable. As the trucking industry faces pressure to cut emissions and control rising fuel expenses, the Semi offers a compelling alternative that excels in performance, comfort, and efficiency.
Coming from a man who has driven everything from vintage classics to modern hypercars, Leno’s genuine enthusiasm adds weight to the verdict.
The Tesla Semi is emerging as more than an experimental EV—it represents a practical vision for the future of heavy-duty transport where massive rigs accelerate instantly, and the numbers finally make sense. If fleet results continue to validate the claims, the era of diesel dominance could be drawing to a close.
News
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads.
Tesla has expanded the color palette it offers on its mass market vehicles in the United States, giving buyers of the Model 3 and Model Y a few additional options than before.
Delivering a fresh splash of color to its lineup, Tesla is giving U.S. buyers two stunning new blue options that are already turning heads. Starting on May 8, the automaker updated its North American configurator to introduce Marine Blue on Model Y Premium trims and Frost Blue exclusively on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
The move replaces the long-running Deep Blue Metallic, a staple for over eight years, and brings previously exclusive shades stateside.
Marine Blue, a deep, rich oceanic hue formerly limited to Europe and Asia-Pacific markets, is now available on Model 3 and Model Y RWD and Long Range AWD Premium variants. Priced at a $1,000 upgrade—standard for Tesla’s premium paints—it delivers a sophisticated, metallic finish that shifts beautifully under light.
Tesla Model Y and Model 3 Premium get Marine Blue for $1000 in the U.S.!
What do you think? pic.twitter.com/3FqMXcnmru
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Tesla North America highlighted the change directly in an official post, confirming Marine Blue as the new flagship blue for non-Performance models.
Frost Blue, on the other hand, is the real crowd-pleaser for enthusiasts. Previously reserved for the flagship Model S and Model X, this lighter, icy metallic shade is now offered at no extra cost on Model 3 Performance and Model Y Performance trims.
Frost Blue now available on Tesla Model 3 Performance 😤 pic.twitter.com/rLOEh4pTkp
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 8, 2026
Performance buyers effectively get a premium color included in the base price, a smart perk that Tesla has extended to higher-end variants across the board. Early in-person sightings and configurator renders show Frost Blue’s cool, modern vibe popping against the cars’ sleek lines, especially with black wheels and red brake calipers.
The timing couldn’t be better. With Tesla pushing refreshed Model 3 and Model Y refreshes amid growing competition, these updates add visual excitement without major redesigns.
Deep Blue Metallic orders are being transitioned to the new shades, according to customer reports and Tesla communications. In the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Mexico, the options are live now; Canada sees limited Frost Blue availability on the Model 3 Performance.
Tesla’s color strategy continues to evolve, borrowing from higher-end models to refresh mass-market EVs. Now that we bid farewell to the Model S and Model X, some of their colors might be available on the more widely available Model 3 and Model Y.
Elon Musk
Tesla Semi’s official battery capacity leaked by California regulators
A California regulatory filing just confirmed the exact battery size inside each Tesla Semi variant.
A regulatory filing published by the California Air Resources Board in April 2026 has put official numbers on what Tesla Semi owners and fleet buyers have long wanted confirmed: the exact battery capacities of both the Long Range and Standard Range Semi truck variants. CARB is California’s independent air quality regulator, and it certifies zero-emission powertrains before they can be sold or operated in the state. When a manufacturer submits a vehicle for certification, the resulting executive order becomes a public document, making it one of the most reliable sources for confirmed production specs on any EV.
The document lists two certified powertrain configurations. The Long Range Semi carries a usable battery capacity of 822 kWh, while the Standard Range version comes in at 548 kWh. Both use lithium-ion NCMA chemistry and share the same peak and steady-state motor output ratings of 800 kW and 525 kW respectively. Cross-referencing Tesla’s published efficiency figure of approximately 1.7 kWh per mile under full load, the 822 kWh pack supports roughly 480 miles of real-world range, which aligns closely with Tesla’s advertised 500-mile figure for the Long Range trim. The 548 kWh Standard Range pack works out to approximately 320 miles, again consistent with Tesla’s stated 325-mile target.
Here is a direct comparison of the two versions based on the CARB filing and published specs:
| Tesla Semi Spec | Long Range | Standard Range |
| Battery Capacity | 822 kWh | 548 kWh |
| Battery Chemistry | NCMA Li-Ion | NCMA Li-Ion |
| Peak Motor Power | 800 kW | 525 kW |
| Estimated Range | ~500 miles | ~325 miles |
| Efficiency | ~1.7 kWh/mile | ~1.7 kWh/mile |
| Est. Price | ~$290,000 | ~$260,000 |
| GVW Rating | 82,000 lbs | 82,000 lbs |
The timing of this certification is not incidental. On April 29, 2026, Semi Programme Director Dan Priestley confirmed on X that high-volume production is now ramping at Tesla’s dedicated 1.7-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada. A key advantage of the Nevada location is vertical integration: the 4680 battery cells powering the Semi are manufactured in the same complex, eliminating the supply chain bottleneck that had delayed the program for years.
Tesla’s long-term goal is to reach a production capacity of 50,000 trucks annually at the Nevada factory, which would represent roughly 20 percent of the entire North American Class 8 market. With CARB certification now in hand and the production line running, the regulatory and manufacturing groundwork for that target is in place.
Tesla Semi gets strange-but-understandable comparison from Jay Leno
Tesla expands its mass-market color palette in the U.S.
