News
SpaceX Starship booster survives explosion
A SpaceX Super Heavy booster was rocked by a substantial explosion and subjected to multiple fires at the launch pad during the rocket’s latest round of testing.
As of 9 pm CDT, July 11th, the fate of the upgraded Super Heavy – known as Booster 7 or B7 – is leaning towards survival but and it won’t be certain until the rocket is drained of all cryogenic propellant and potentially flammable gas and safe for SpaceX employees to approach. The incident began around 4:20 pm CDT, when Super Heavy Booster 7 (or its launch mount) unintentionally ignited a cloud of flammable gas produced during flow test involving most or all of its 33 Raptor engines. In the past, SpaceX has performed “spin prime” tests with Raptors installed on Starship prototypes, flowing high-pressure gas through the engines’ turbines to get them up to operating speeds and pressures. Booster 7’s test ended a bit differently.
When the resulting cloud of well-mixed methane and oxygen gas was accidentally ignited, it functioned like a small fuel-air bomb, rapidly combusting to produce a violent explosion and shockwave. After the initial explosion, the fire also expanded to burn as much of the resulting gas as possible, producing a fireball that briefly reached 80-90 meters (~260-300 ft) in height. CEO Elon Musk – apparently not directly participating in the test – initially stated that the explosion and fire was planned, implying that it was more or less a nominal outcome. Virtually everyone with experience observing Starship testing felt otherwise, however.
To preserve the safety of the few local residents still living at Boca Chica Village, SpaceX is required to issue printed safety warnings well in advance of Starship tests that could create a shockwave capable of shattering glass and injuring locals. SpaceX has never intentionally performed such a test without distributing those warnings and did not distribute a warning before July 11th, all but guaranteeing that no ignition event was planned. A few hours later, Musk deleted his original tweet and posted a different one, confirming that the explosion was “actually not good” and that SpaceX is “assessing the damage.”
For the most part, Booster 7 and the Starbase Orbital Launch Site (OLS) exceeded viewers’ expectations of their sturdiness, exhibiting very little off-nominal behavior after being subjected to a unexpected explosion, shockwave, and fire. Immediately after the event, B7 quickly depressurized its propellant tanks and appeared to leave those vents open, reducing the chances of the booster destroying itself if SpaceX were to lose control. SpaceX also appeared to intentionally avoid using the orbital launch mount’s (OLM) umbilical mechanism to remove propellant from the Super Heavy’s tanks, perhaps concerned that the shockwave might have weakened its connection to B7.
About an hour after the explosion, Booster 7 dumped a large amount of cryogenic liquid out of a new vent located on its aft end, producing a flood that spread around the adjacent pad. It’s unclear if that liquid was nitrogen or oxygen but either way, the emergency propellant dump appeared to cause a fire to start about 100 feet (~30m) from the booster and launch mount. That fire proceeded to burn intermittently for the next two hours, all the while posing a clear and present danger to the rest of the pad and booster if it were to spread in the wrong direction or breach the wrong underground pipe. Instead, SpaceX got lucky and the fire eventually self-extinguished.
In a worst-case scenario, Super Heavy’s engine section and 33 Raptor engines could have been seriously damaged, while the subsequent pad fire(s) could have also significantly damaged crucial pad systems, requiring weeks of repairs. The booster could even be beyond repair. More optimistically, given that SpaceX appears to have gotten lucky enough to avoid a total loss of vehicle, Booster 7 may be fine after some inspections and moderate repairs. The pad damage could also be limited to a single isolated, non-critical piece of equipment catching fire and burning to a crisp
Regardless, SpaceX will need to figure out what exactly caused the explosion and make sure that that failure mode does not appear again. In the meantime, the company recently finished stacking Super Heavy Booster 8, and Starship S24 – installed on a nearby suborbital test stand – is ready to begin its own static fire test campaign in the near future.
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’
