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.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
