News
Here’s why SpaceX’s latest Starship rocket exploded after touchdown
In what has become a bit of a tradition, CEO Elon Musk has taken to Twitter again to explain the outcome of SpaceX’s latest Starship launch and landing attempt in more detail.
This time around, Musk’s debriefing comes after Starship serial number 10 (SN10) briefly became the first prototype of its kind to land in one piece – an extremely encouraging milestone for SpaceX. Less than 15 minutes later, though, an uncontrolled fire somehow breached the rocket’s stainless steel propellant tanks, resulting in a violent depressurization and explosion that tore Starship SN10 to pieces.
SN10’s momentarily successful landing came less than 30 days after Starship SN9’s own launch and landing attempt, which debuted a quick-fix design change meant to sidestep a different issue that caused Starship SN8 to fail shortly before touchdown last December. As it turns out, that design change – which SN9 never really had the chance to test – may have been Starship SN10’s downfall.
Starships must perform highly unusual maneuvers during their skydiver-style approach to atmospheric descent and the aggressive flip required to transition from that belly-down attitude into a propulsive vertical landing configuration. To enable those acrobatics, Starships need secondary ‘header’ tanks that permit the high-pressure storage of landing propellant.
Instead of having to maintain Starship’s building-sized main tanks at high pressures, header tanks make it far easier to safely store and feed propellant to Raptor engines. Most importantly, they help avoid prevent fuel flow interruptions or bubbles that can easily damage or destroy high-performance liquid rocket engines like Starship’s Raptors.
After Starship SN8’s last-second landing failure on December 8th, SpaceX concluded that low pressure in the liquid methane header tank was largely to blame. Normally pressurized with methane gas in a cutting-edge process called autogenous pressurization, SpaceX ultimately seemed to think that that process was the root cause and responded by adding an alternative helium pressurization workaround at the last second. Long-term, helium is not a viable solution as it’s virtually impossible to resupply in-situ (on the fly), meaning that any Starships reliant upon helium would find themselves stranded on the Moon or Mars.
Starship SN9 ultimately failed a few seconds earlier than Starship SN8 when one of its Raptor engines failed to ignite, precluding a true flight test of the helium pressurization fix. As it turns out, Musk believes that that very fix may have doomed Starship SN10.
As Starship SN10 forged ahead past the points of failure that killed SN8 and SN9, the SpaceX CEO thinks that one or more of the vehicle’s three Raptor engines began to ingest some of that helium pressurant as they emptied their methane header tank. As a result, engine thrust would have dropped below expected values, preventing Starship SN10 from slowing down for a truly soft landing. Instead, the Starship hit the ground traveling a solid 25 mph (~10 m/s), obliterating its tiny landing legs and damaging its skirt section.
It’s unclear if that hard landing was the sole cause of SN10’s subsequent explosion, as both official and unofficial webcasts of the launch appear to show a major fire starting well before touchdown and continuing to burn up to the point of failure. Regardless, Musk says that “multiple fixes” are in work for Starship SN11, which is currently speeding towards a launch attempt as early as next week. It remains to be seen if those planned “fixes” will delay SN11’s launch plans.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
