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.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
