News
SpaceX Starship booster survives record-breaking 31-engine static fire
SpaceX’s Starship rocket has survived a record-breaking engine test – potentially the most powerful static fire in the history of rocketry.
According to CEO Elon Musk, Super Heavy Booster 7 (B7) ultimately ignited 31 of its 33 Raptor engines. One engine was manually disabled “just before” the static fire, while the other faulty engine automatically shut down while attempting to ignite. The other 31 Raptors, however, completed a “full duration” static fire that lasted about five seconds. Musk says that even with two engines disabled, those that remained were “still enough…to reach orbit” – an excellent result despite the static fire’s imperfections.
Most importantly, Super Heavy Booster 7 survived the test without catching fire, exploding, or popping its tanks. To partially counteract the thrust of its Raptor engines, the rocket’s tanks were filled with some 3000 tons (6.6M lbs) of liquid oxygen and methane propellant. The stool-like orbital launch mount (OLM), which also survived the test in one piece, held Starship down with 20 clamps to counteract any remaining thrust. From SpaceX’s perspective, the fact alone that its only orbital-class Starship launch site survived the ordeal is likely enough for it to consider the static fire a success. But the test was much more than that.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Incinerating rocket records
Despite losing two Raptors, SpaceX still broke the all-time record for the number of rocket engines ignited simultaneously. That record was held by the Soviet N1 rocket, which launched four times with 30 NK-15 engines in the late 1960s and early 1970s. None of its test flights were successful, but N1 still set the record for the most thrust produced by a single rocket, generating up to 4500 tons (9.9M lbf) of thrust at liftoff.
Neither SpaceX nor CEO Elon Musk has confirmed it, reducing the odds that Super Heavy Booster 7 broke that historic thrust record. But it certainly could have. Each Raptor 2 engine can generate up to 230 tons (507,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level. Raptor is theoretically designed to throttle as low as 40%, or 92 tons (~200,000 lbf) of thrust. With 33 engines operating nominally at their minimum throttle setting, Super Heavy would have produced 3036 tons (~6.7M lbf) of thrust during today’s static fire – not a record.
For 31 Raptors to break N1’s thrust record, the average throttle setting would have had to be around 64% or higher – far from unreasonable. From a data-gathering perspective, a full-thrust static fire would be the most valuable 33-engine test SpaceX could attempt, but it would also be the riskiest and most stressful for the rocket and pad.
Former SpaceX executive Tom Mueller says that SpaceX broke N1’s record. Mueller is effectively the father of the Raptor engine, and likely still gets information straight from SpaceX engineers he used to work with. Still, one would expect SpaceX itself to proudly confirm as much if a rocket it built became the most powerful in history.
The most powerful rocket test in history?
Whether or not Starship became the most powerful rocket in history, it has likely become the most powerful rocket ever tested on the ground. The first stage of Saturn V produced around 3400 tons (7.5M lbf) of thrust during its first sea-level static fire in 1965. Likely contributing to its failure, N1’s booster was never static-fired. Other powerful rockets like the Space Shuttle and SLS use or used a combination of solid rocket boosters and liquid engines that cannot be tested together on the ground.
Unless SpaceX’s goal was a minimum-throttle static fire, Starship’s 31-Raptor static fire likely beat Saturn V’s record to become the most powerful ground test in the history of rocketry.
SpaceX’s next steps
While the 31 that did ignite appeared to perform about as well as SpaceX could have hoped, the two engines missing from February 9th’s historic Starship static fire have probably complicated the company’s next steps. To be fully confident in Starship’s ability to launch and fly a safe distance away from the launch site, SpaceX would likely need to complete a full 33-engine test. Meanwhile, Starship can’t fly until the Federal Aviation Administration approves a launch license, and the FAA could be stodgy enough to deny SpaceX a license without a perfect 33-engine static fire.
Alternatively, the FAA may accept that Starship could still safely launch and reach orbit while missing several Raptors. SpaceX could also guarantee that it will only allow Starship to lift off if all 33 engines are active, in which case a second 33-engine static fire attempt may not be necessary.
If SpaceX is happy with Booster 7’s 31-engine test results and isn’t too put off by any pad damage the test may or may not have caused, it will likely focus on finishing Starship 24. Ship 24 will then be transported back to the pad and reinstalled on top of Booster 7. SpaceX may choose to conduct another wet dress rehearsal or a static fire with the fully-stacked Starship, but it may also deem additional testing unnecessary.
Once all those tasks are completed, Ship 24 and Booster 7 will be ready to support Starship’s first orbital launch attempt. Prior to February 9th’s static fire, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and COO/President Gwynne Shotwell agreed that Starship’s orbital launch debut could happen as early as March 2023. After today’s test, a March 2023 launch may be within reach.
Rewatch Super Heavy Booster 7’s historic static fire below.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
