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 just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
