News
SpaceX’s Elon Musk hints at “notable” Starship changes, explains static fire anomaly
CEO Elon Musk has offered an explanation for SpaceX’s recent Starship static fire anomaly and says that an overview of the next-generation rocket development program will be delayed to account for some “notable” design changes.
Over the last several months, Musk has promised to do one of his (thus far) usual annual Starship updates, either in the form of a presentation in South Texas, an article published on SpaceX’s website, or both. Originally expected in September or October, the CEO’s tentative schedules have come and gone several times. Simultaneously, however, SpaceX has been preparing Starship serial number 8 (SN8) for a range of crucial tests and Starship program firsts, recently culminating in a successful cryogenic proof test, multiple wet dress rehearsals (WDRs), nosecone installation, the first triple-Raptor static fire test, engine tests using smaller ‘header’ tanks, and more.
Unfortunately for SN8, the most recent Raptor engine header static fire – drawing propellant from two small internal tanks mainly used for landing burns – did not go according to plan, resulting in some kind of high-temperature fire and severing Starship’s hydraulic systems. For SpaceX test controllers, that meant a total loss of control of most vehicle valves and pressurization systems, essentially putting one of Starship SN8’s header tanks through an unplanned pressure and failsafe test. In the days since, what exactly caused that unfortunate failure has been the subject of a great deal of discussion – discussion that can finally be put to rest with new information from Musk himself.
In a surprise, SpaceX had apparently decided to add a failsafe to Starship SN8’s new nose section, installing what is known as a burst disk – effectively an automatic single-use valve. Once the upper (liquid oxygen) header tank reached dangerous pressures, the force of that pressure broke the seal, allowing the rocket to vent excess pressure and avoid what would have otherwise been a potentially catastrophic explosion.
The cause of that near-miss, according to Elon Musk, was as simple as debris kicked up during the Starship SN8 Raptor engine static fire directly prior. Producing up to 200 metric tons (~450,000 lbf) of thrust and an exhaust stream traveling some 3.3 kilometers per second (2 mi/s, Mach ~10), Musk says that Raptor tore apart a special ceramic coating covering the concrete directly beneath Starship SN8. Likely accelerated to extreme velocities in milliseconds, shards of that coating reportedly “severed [an] avionics cable, causing [a] bad [Raptor engine shutdown].”
Prior to Musk’s comments, SpaceX technicians had already removed on of SN8’s three Raptors – SN32 – on November 14th and replaced it with Raptor SN42 on November 16th, effectively confirming that any damage suffered by Starship’s engine section was easily repairable. It’s unclear how exactly a single severed cable could result in a Raptor engine seemingly dripping molten metal but regardless of the cause, the fix appears to have been a quick one.
In response to the anomaly, Musk says that Starship avionics cables will ultimately be routed inside steel pipes to shield them from debris, while “water-cooled steel pipes” will be added to the launch pad to help limit the damage Raptors can cause. Perhaps as a partial result of SN8’s troubles at the launch pad, Musk says that his Starship blog post will have to wait, as SpaceX “[may be] making some notable changes” to the launch vehicle.
Prior to Starship SN8’s failed November 12th Raptor test, SpaceX was expected to attempt three consecutive static fires before clearing the rocket for an ambitious 15 km (9.5 mi) flight test. One of those static fires had already been completed on November 10th and it’s unclear if SpaceX’s SN8 test plan has remained unchanged or if the static fire counter has been effectively reset. Either way, barring more surprises, there’s still a definite possibility that Starship SN8 will be ready for its launch debut by the end of November and an even better chance that it will launch some time between now and 2021. Stay tuned for updates!
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
