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 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
