News
SpaceX Starship prototype charred but intact after catching fire [photos]
SpaceX teams have finally safed the fourth full-scale Starship prototype nearly two days after a Raptor engine test caught it on fire, an anomaly that left the massive rocket charred and damaged – but still intact.
While SN4’s survival is a welcome and unexpected outcome, the fire that broke out near the base of the rocket caused damage that will have to be repaired, while the fault that allowed that fire to occur in the first place will also need to be rectified. Had the same events transpired during the ship’s inaugural flight test, things could have gone even further south after the rocket lifted off, carrying it away from remotely-controlled water jets used to suppress unplanned fires on the pad.
Thankfully, SpaceX’s focus on testing, testing, and testing some more meant that Starship SN4’s minor self-immolation occurred on the ground when the stakes – while high – were much lower than they would have been with an airborne rocket. The problems uncovered will, of course, need to be fixed, inevitably delaying the ship’s first flight test, but odds are that SN4 now has a better shot at success thanks to those hiccups.
Thanks to the fact that Starships are constructed almost entirely out of steel, a little (or a lot of) fire shouldn’t theoretically be much of a problem. However, SpaceX has taken a rather freeform approach to its early Starship SNx prototypes, opting to bolt, weld, or tape on the vast majority of external hardware with little or no protection from the elements, including fires ignited by the ships themselves.
With SN4, it appears that the pressure jump experiences immediately after Raptor ignition (the ship’s third such test) shook some methane-related plumbing loose. Raptor continued to burn for another five or so seconds after that minor failure, shutting down as planned – but not before it ignited the methane the burst pipe was leaking. Additionally, after that new plume of boiling liquid methane caught fire, the fire it sustained proceeded to ignite insulation wrapped around the rocket’s launch. It burned vigorously, likely helping to damage wiring, ultimately causing SpaceX to partially lose control of the rocket and preventing attempts to inspect and fix the damage for two full days.
It’s safe to say that SpaceX is probably going to prioritize avoiding the series of events that caused May 19th’s anomaly from here on out, considering that things could have easily gone much worse. Thankfully, whatever control SpaceX or the rocket itself retained after wire damage allowed it to safely offload its flammable propellant and vent expanding gases to prevent SN4’s tanks from bursting. Installing highly flammable insulation approximately 10 feet away from an active Raptor engine and giant controlled fire and explosion was also inadvisable and probably won’t be repeated.
Thankfully, the damage is clearly minimal and Starship SN4 survived the ordeal otherwise unscathed. With any luck, inspections and repairs will be quick and easy and SpaceX – as NASASpaceflight reporter Michael Baylor notes – will be able to complete an identical static fire test without starting a fire on Starship SN4. SpaceX has requested a new road closure (signifying planned testing) on May 28th with backup windows on May 29th and June 1st.
Thanks to Starship SN4’s unplanned delays, it now looks quite likely that SpaceX’s next full-scale Starship prototype (SN5) will be completed – or nearly so – by the time that its predecessor is cleared for flight. “Too many Starships” is certainly a welcome problem to have.
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 gives its biggest signal yet that Cybercab launch is imminent
Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one
