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.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.
With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.
These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:
- When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
- What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
- How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
- When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
- When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?
Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:
- Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
- What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
- Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?
The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.
This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.
Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.
The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
