News
SpaceX Starship nails ‘flip’ maneuver in explosive landing video
Update: SpaceX has published a video taken near the launch pad of Starship nailing an exotic ‘flip’ maneuver shortly before a hard landing destroyed the rocket.
Both the company, test directors, and CEO Elon Musk have all made it abundantly clear that despite the explosive end, Starship SN8’s maiden flight was a spectacular success, proving that the rocket is capable of performing several previously-unproven maneuvers and surviving the associated stresses. Notably, according to tweets posted by Musk not long after, Starship SN8 performed almost perfectly, failing a soft landing (already proven by SN5 and SN6) solely because of low pressure in the rocket’s secondary ‘header’ fuel tank.
For unknown reasons, that tank or its associated plumbing were unable to maintain the pressure needed to feed Raptor with enough propellant, resulting in fuel starvation mid-burn. A lack of fuel and surplus of oxygen effectively turned the landing engine into a giant oxygen torch, melting the copper walls of its combustion chamber (hence the green plume). Had the header tank maintained the correct pressure, SN8 would have very likely landed intact (or at least had a much softer landing).
In simpler terms, it seems that Raptor isn’t to blame for Starship SN8’s failed landing and fixing a pressurization problem will be dramatically faster and easier than rectifying a rocket engine design flaw.
In perhaps the most spectacular aerospace demonstration since Falcon Heavy’s 2018 debut, SpaceX’s first full-size Starship prototype came within a hair’s breadth of sticking the landing after an otherwise successful ~12.5 km (7.8 mi) launch debut.
To quote SpaceX’s test director, heard live on the company’s official webcast moments after Starship serial number 8 (SN8) exploded on impact, “Incredible work, team!” For most, praise shortly after a rocket explosion could easily feel nonsensical, but in the context of SpaceX’s iterative approach to development, a Starship prototype failing just moments before the end of a multi-minute test can be considered a spectacular success.
Chock full of surprises, Starship SN8 ignited its three Raptor engines for the third time and lifted off at 4:45 pm CST (UTC-6) on the program’s high-altitude launch debut.
About 100 seconds after liftoff, already representing the longest-known ignition of one – let alone three – Raptor engines, one of those three engines appeared to shut down, causing the two remaining engines to gimbal wildly in an effort to retain control. Another two minutes after that, one of those Raptors also shut down, leaving one engine active. That one engine continued to burn for another minute and a half, producing just enough thrust to more or less maintain Starship SN8’s altitude at apogee while performing a bizarre horizontal slide maneuver.
Finally, at a bit less than five minutes after liftoff, Starship cut off all Raptor engines and began falling back to earth. Looking spectacularly similar to fan-made renders and CGI videos of the highly-anticipated ‘skydiver’ or ‘belly-flop’ maneuver, Starship – belly down – spent around two minutes in a rock-solid freefall, using four large flaps to maintain stability.
Around 4:52 pm, Starship SN8 performed exactly as expected, igniting one – and then two – Raptor engines while fully parallel to the ground to complete an aggressive 90-degree flip, transitioning into vertical flight for an attempted landing. Unfortunately, although it’s difficult to judge what was intentional and what was not, things began to go wrong after that point -visible in the form of one of the two reignited Raptors flashing green before shutting down.
At the same time, the plume of the lone remaining engine flashed an electric green, quite literally consuming its copper-rich internals in an unsuccessful attempt to slow Starship down. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Raptor performed “great” throughout the launch and landing attempt, with the bright-green plume likely explained by extremely oxygen-rich combustion caused by low “fuel header tank pressure.”
Regardless of the specific cause, Starship SN8 smashed into the ground around 10-20 seconds early, traveling about 30 m/s (~70 mph) too fast. To be clear, in SpaceX’s eyes, the test – primarily focused on demonstrating multi-engine ascent, freefall stability, header tank handover, engine reignition, and a flip-over maneuver – was a spectacular success, completing almost every single objective and seemingly doing so without any major issues.
Clocking in at an incredible (and unexpected) ~400 seconds (~6.5 minutes) from liftoff to explosion, it’s difficult to exaggerate the sheer quantity of invaluable data SpaceX has likely gathered from SN8’s sacrifice. Thanks to SN8’s primarily successful debut, SpaceX’s Starship test and launch facilities (minus the rocket’s remains on the landing zone) appear to be almost completely unharmed, likely requiring only minor repairs and refurbishment. Further, Starship SN9 is effectively complete and patiently waiting a few miles down the road, ready to roll to the launch pad almost as soon as SpaceX has understood the cause of SN8’s hard landing.
Stay tuned for more analysis, photos, and videos as the dust settles.
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
