News
SpaceX’s recent Starship testing challenges don’t worry Elon Musk
In his latest burst of tweets, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he isn’t all that worried about a duo of recent Starship prototype failures and talked next steps for the next few Starships.
Aside from SpaceX’s South Texas rocket factory, Musk also touched on progress being made on the cutting-edge Raptor engine set to power Starships and their boosters, revealing a small production milestone in the process. The CEO says that SpaceX has already begun building its 26th Raptor engine, a sign that Raptors may actually be waiting on Starships in a turn of events. Back when SpaceX was busy testing its low-fidelity Starhopper testbed, the ship actually had to wait several months for the full-scale Raptor engine’s design to mature enough to support 15-30+ second hop tests.
Now, Musk’s Raptor SN26 reveal implies that SpaceX is slowly but surely ramping up production of the new engine back at its Hawthorne, California headquarters.
From August to December 2019, SpaceX completed one Raptor engine every ~17 days, on average. With Musk’s confirmation that SpaceX is currently building (or already testing) SN26, the company is completing an engine every 12-14 days – an overall improvement of 20-40%. In other words, SpaceX’s growing engine production capacity is almost perfectly positioned to support a fleet of suborbital Starship prototypes, which is about where the company’s Boca Chica, Texas factory is today.
Obviously, following two recent full-scale Starship prototype failures spaced barely a month apart, rocket production has a ways to go before it will need the volume of Raptor engines SpaceX appears to already be capable of producing. For the time being, three Raptor engines – having already completed production in Hawthorne and acceptance testing in McGregor, Texas – are quite literally sitting around and gathering dust as they wait for the first Starship prototype qualified to host them.
Once a Starship passes proof testing, SpaceX will be able to install either one or all three engines for an inaugural static fire test, following by a small Starhopper-class hop (no higher than 150m or 500 ft).
However, once SpaceX has explored the full range of testing available to suborbital Starship prototypes, things will change. Likely ending with the first one or several successful ‘skydiver-style’ rocket landing tests, SpaceX will finally be able to seriously think about its first orbital flight tests. To reach orbit and still be capable of returning to Earth and landing softly, Starship will need a Super Heavy booster – set to be the largest rocket booster ever developed by a large margin.
Although Musk has stated that early orbital flight tests will likely launch with far fewer engines, a single Super Heavy booster could eventually require 37 Raptor engines – a full 42% more engines than SpaceX has managed to build in the entire 15+ month history of full-scale Raptor production.
Thankfully, SpaceX’s engine production HQ likely has at least 6-12 months to ramp up production to support fully-outfitted Super Heavy boosters – let alone several. For the time being, each suborbital Starship only needs 3 sea level-optimized Raptor engines, although it’s possible that SpaceX will eventually perform suborbital tests with a full compliment of six engines – including three with much larger vacuum-optimized nozzles.
Ultimately, Musk explained that his lack of concern about recent Starship prototype failures – potentially including any anomalies that follow SN4’s test campaign – comes from the fact that he believes that producing Starships is a much more challenging and pressing concern. Indeed, if your factory can churn out functioning building-sized spacecraft for pennies on the dollar, losing a few during testing is little more than an annoyance. The first failed prototypes can thus be considered learning experiences, helping SpaceX improve designs and optimize the factory and production strategies. SpaceX does still need to prove that its existing approach really can build functioning rockets, but that should (in theory) come with enough trial and error.
Depending on how initial tests go with Starship Serial Number 4 (SN4), likely days away from wrapping up production, Musk says that the first few suborbital Starship tests will likely involve short, low-velocity hops. Those flights will be slow enough that the ship (or ships) wont require aerodynamic control surfaces to complete them, instead relying entirely on smaller thrusters and the thrust vector control (TVC) provided by their three main Raptor engines.
If Starship SN4 testing – including wet dress rehearsals, Raptor static fires, and short hops – goes perfectly, Musk says that Starship SN5 could be the first new ship to have fully-functional flaps installed. If things don’t go quite as well, that milestone could shift to Starship SN6, while SN7 and beyond are obviously on the table in the event of even less forgiving SN4/SN5 testing scenarios. For now, Starship SN4 could be ready to move to the launch pad and kick off a series of critical proof tests a handful of days from now.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
