News
SpaceX aborts Starship launch after Raptors produce too much thrust
Update #3: SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Starship prototype SN10 automatically aborted a 2:15 pm CST (UTC-6) launch attempt after the rocket determined that its three Raptor engines were producing too much thrust.
Instead of scrubbing for the day, Musk says that SpaceX will instead increase the flight computer’s thrust limits and try again as early as 4:30 pm CST – still well before today’s window closes at 6:30 pm. SpaceX ended its webcast but will start a second webcast a few minutes prior to the next launch attempt.
Update #2: As of Wednesday morning, SpaceX has officially confirmed that Starship is on track for a third high-altitude launch and ‘bellyflop‘-style landing attempt sometime later today.
As of 11am CST (UTC-6), FAA approval is in hand, weather is encouraging, Starship prototype serial number 10’s (SN10) flaps have been unchained, and SpaceX has cleared the launch site – all signs that the rocket’s launch attempt is imminent. Much like SN8 and SN9 coverage, SpaceX says it will make a public livestream of SN10’s launch available to the public “a few minutes” before liftoff. Stay tuned and follow along with NASASpaceflight’s live coverage in the meantime.
Update: SpaceX has asked Boca Chica Village residents to prepare to evacuate the area as early as Wednesday morning for Starship’s third high-altitude launch and landing attempt.
The odds of things going so wrong that a Starship launch could actually end with a prototype impacting at or near the Village and the handful of non-employee holdouts still residing there are minuscule. However, FAA safety regulations and SpaceX’s contingent launch license mean that evacuations are now a routine part of Starship’s high-altitude flight tests since Starship SN8 took the first step beyond short hops. While undeniably inconvenient for the few remaining residents, today’s evacuation notice – short of an official SpaceX.com confirmation – does serve as the ultimate sign that Starship SN10’s first launch attempt is firmly scheduled on Wednesday, March 3rd.
With FAA approval in hand, weather rapidly improving, and the latest rocket prototype seemingly raring to go, the stars are aligning for SpaceX’s third high-altitude Starship launch and first triple-engine landing attempt.
As of March 1st, publicly-available FAA “temporary flight restrictions” (TFRs) and weather forecasts both agree that SpaceX is currently preparing to launch Starship serial number 10 (SN10) as early as Wednesday afternoon CST (UTC-6), March 3rd. Barring surprises, that gives SpaceX a healthy three-day period to account for any potential technical or weather-related delays.
Originally scheduled as early as the last week of February, unspecified delays pushed Starship SN10’s launch debut schedule into March. In general, the vehicle’s path to flight has been much smoother than Starship SN8 and SN9, both of which ran into hardware bugs and opaque FAA licensing issues. With Starship SN10, the FAA approved SpaceX’s “modified” launch license well before the company was ready for flight – and even before the rocket had attempted its first static fire.
Unlike Starships SN8 and SN9, both of which took anywhere from 6-10 weeks to go from rolling off the factory floor to preparing for their first launch attempts, SN10’s first launch attempt appears likely to occur less than five weeks after the rocket arrived at the launch site. The sequential improvements in efficiency and reliability between those three prototypes is a fundamental part (or goal, at least) of SpaceX’s iterative development process.
Still, Starship SN10’s preflight flow wasn’t completely free of drama and SpaceX ultimately put the rocket through a second triple-Raptor static fire after the first test revealed an issue with one of those engines. SpaceX swapped that faulty engine out in record time and fired up SN10 again less than 48 hours after test #1, seemingly producing more satisfactory results the second time around.
Unlike its predecessors, SN10 will also debut a new triple-engine approach to landing, aiming to increase redundancy and boost the odds of a successful touchdown even if one of the Starship’s three Raptors fail during a last-second flip maneuver. Building on the failures of SN8 and SN9, it’s safe to say that SN10 has the best shot yet at sticking the landing.
TFRs show that two earlier launch windows on Monday and Tuesday (March 1st and 2nd) were canceled, leaving only the Wednesday, March 3rd airspace closure request still open. Wednesday was then backed up with two alternate windows on Thursday and Friday not long after.
Hardware-wise, Starship SN10’s cherry-on-top (an explosives-based flight termination system or FTS) was installed on February 28th. In the event that Starship loses control and strays past a certain point outside of its approved trajectory, that FTS would explode, breaching the rocket’s propellant tank, triggering vehicle breakup, and thus preventing it from harming the local populace. All told, SpaceX confirmation of a Wednesday launch attempt – and another official webcast – should be imminent. Stay tuned!
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
