News
SpaceX Starship prototype in limbo after engine test lights rocket on fire
The fate of SpaceX’s fourth full-scale Starship prototype appears to be in limbo after a third (seemingly successful) engine ignition test unintentionally caught the rocket on fire.
Now more than 12 hours after Starship SN4 fired up its new Raptor engine, the ~30m (~100 ft) tall, 9m (~30 ft) wide prototype is apparently trapped with one or both of its propellant tanks still partially filled with liquid (or gaseous) methane and/or oxygen. An initial road closure scheduled from noon to 6pm local quickly came and went and SpaceX and Cameron County Texas have since modified the paperwork, extending the closure a full 24 hours. In other words, SpaceX has reason to believe that Starship SN4 may continue to be unsafe (i.e. pressurized) as many as ~30 hours after it technically completed its third static fire test – extremely unusual, to say the least.
There’s only one obvious conclusion to draw. Whether it was something invisible to the public eye or damage related to the off-nominal fire that burned for some 15 minutes after Raptor shut down, SpaceX appears – to some extent – to have lost control of Starship SN4.
At the moment, it’s unclear what is wrong and what SpaceX is attempting to do to resolve the problem. Based on photos of Starship SN4 taken before the fire, there is good news and bad news from what can be publicly ascertained. Controlled from the ground by unprotected wires strung up and down the rocket and connected at its base, the uncontrolled fire that burned in at least two locations around Starship’s aft may have severed some or all of those critical connections.
That would render Starship – potentially perfectly healthy and operational – almost entirely uncontrollable, while also potentially removing SpaceX’s access to telemetry. In other words, the company may currently have no idea how pressurized all or part of Starship SN4 is and may also have little to no control of some or all of the rocket. For that to be true, Starship SN4 would, however, have to have less than fully redundant control hardware. To perform hops, for example, the ship would need both wired and radio links capable of sending telemetry and receiving commands to remain both on the ground and after liftoff.
It’s possible that Starship SN4 has the necessary hardware installed but that it wasn’t activated for the static fire test (think “Starship will never leave the ground, why would we need to enable wireless controls?”). It’s also possible that the blown pipe and methane leak that appeared to cause the secondary fire damaged crucial propellant management hardware (valves, pumps, etc.) or was just a symptom of an even worse overpressure event that damaged or destroyed multiple such systems.
Given that safety is almost certainly the priority, chances are that some combination of fairly mild hardware failure and telemetry/control loss has left SpaceX with just enough uncertainty that it can’t risk sending technicians to the launch site to inspect the damage and reestablish control. As a result, the only option left is to quite literally sit and wait until it’s once again safe to approach the rocket. Thankfully, at this point, the risk of the mystery problem actually destroying Starship SN4 is very low. If, as it appears, only its methane tank is affected, leaving some unknown quantity of latent liquid methane trapped inside, it’s possible that waiting will actually solve the problem and safe the rocket.
The fact that Starship hasn’t exploded yet strongly implies either that the amount of propellant trapped is minuscule or that the vast majority of SN4’s propellant management systems (including vents) remain functional. Assuming that’s the case, any remaining cryogenic propellant will eventually boil into gas, increasing the pressure inside Starship’s tanks, while those tanks will continue to vent to prevent an explosion or rupture. Eventually, Starship SN4 will be empty once again and SpaceX will be able to approach the rocket to regain control and begin inspections and repairs.
Regardless, after such an unintentionally eventful static fire test, it’s extremely unlikely that SN4 will be ready for its inaugural flight test within the next few days. Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX works to regain control over the fourth full-scale Starship prototype.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
Elon Musk has confirmed that Tesla does intend to sell a version of the Cybercab for less than $30,000 by 2027.
Elon Musk has confirmed that Tesla does intend to sell a version of the Cybercab for less than $30,000 by 2027. He shared the update in a post on social media platform X.
Amidst Tesla’s announcement that the first Cybercab has been produced at Giga Texas’ production line, some members of the Tesla community immediately started joking about how the milestone will affect a wager shared by popular YouTube tech reviewer Marques Brownlee (MKBHD.)
Following Tesla’s We, Robot event in October 2024, MKBHD noted that while the Cybercab was impressive in a lot of ways, he is very skeptical about Elon Musk’s estimate that the autonomous two-seater could be sold to consumers for below $30,000 around 2027.
“I think the obvious red flag, the biggest red flag to me is the timeline stuff. This is notorious Elon stuff. He gets on stage, he says we’re going to have this vehicle out for $30,000 before 2027,” he said, adding “No, they’re not. There’s just no way that they’re actually going to be able to do that. I mean, if they do, let’s say they do, I will shave my head on camera because I’m that confident.”
It was then no surprise that meme images of MKBHD with his head shaved immediately spread on X following Tesla’s announcement that the first Cybercab has been built at Giga Texas. One of these, which was posted by longtime FSD tester Whole Mars Catalog, received a response from Elon Musk. The CEO responded with the words “Gonna happen,” together with a laughing emoji.
Apart from riding jokes about MKBHD’s wager, Musk also confirmed that Tesla will be selling a Cybercab to regular consumers before 2027, and the vehicle will be priced for $30,000 or less. In response to an X user who asked if the exact scenario will be happening, Musk responded with a simple “Yes.”
While the first Cybercab has been produced at Giga Texas, it would not be surprising if the following months will only see low volumes of the autonomous two seater being produced. As per Elon Musk in previous comments, the Cybercab’s early production will likely be slow, but it will eventually be extremely fast. “For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast,” he said.
Elon Musk
First Tesla Cybercab rolls off Giga Texas production line
Tesla’s official account on X shared an image showing employees gathered around the first Cybercab built at Gigafactory Texas.
Tesla has produced the first Tesla Cybercab at Texas Gigafactory, marking a key milestone ahead of the planned autonomous two-seater’s production in April. The two-seat Robotaxi, which was unveiled in 2024, is designed without pedals or a steering wheel and represents Tesla’s most aggressive step yet toward fully autonomous mobility.
Tesla’s official account on X shared an image showing employees gathered around the first Cybercab built at Gigafactory Texas. Elon Musk echoed the milestone, writing, “Congratulations to the Tesla team on making the first production Cybercab!”
Previous comments from Musk on X reiterated the idea that production of the Cybercab “starts in April.” The vehicle will launch without traditional driver controls, and it will rely entirely on Tesla’s vision-based Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The Cybercab is positioned to compete with autonomous services such as Waymo. While Tesla has deployed Model Y vehicles in limited Robotaxi operations in Austin and the Bay Area, a serious ramp of the service to other cities across the United States is yet to be implemented. The production of the Cybercab could then be seen as a push towards the company’s autonomy plans.
Musk has linked the Cybercab to Tesla’s proposed “Unboxed” manufacturing process, which would assemble large vehicle modules separately before integrating them, rather than following a traditional production line. The approach is intended to cut costs, reduce factory footprint, and speed up output.
That being said, Elon Musk has set expectations for the Cybercab’s production ramp. As per Musk, it would likely take some time before meaningful volumes of the Cybercab are produced because it is such a new and different vehicle. But when the vehicle hits its pace, volumes will be notable.
“Initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast,” Musk noted.
Elon Musk
California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.
The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”
This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.
A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”
It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”
If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.
Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics
A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.
Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.
The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.
The report comes from Davis Vanguard.
It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
First Tesla Cybercab rolls off Giga Texas production line
