News
SpaceX Starship to test landing upgrades after two explosions
After two Starship prototypes aced their high-altitude launch debuts only to suffer last-second landing failures for unique reasons, SpaceX is gearing up for a third launch as early as this week.
Crucially, though Elon Musk’s levelheaded realism (or pessimism) has often seemed to underestimate the actual odds of success, the SpaceX CEO is substantially more confident on Starship’s third launch attempt than he was on the first flight two months ago. Back when Starship serial number 8 (SN8) was preparing to attempt the program’s first high-altitude launch, Musk pegged the probability of a successful launch, freefall, and landing at ~33%.
As it turned out, he wasn’t wrong, but Starship SN8 ultimately made far closer to a total success than almost anyone – inside SpaceX or not – expected it to get on the first try. Less than two months later, Starship SN9 suffered a similar last-second landing failure more than six minutes into the flight, though the root causes of both failures were unique.
In other words, both flight tests served their nominal purpose, uncovering two failure modes that would have eventually reared their heads one way or another. With SN8, Starship was unable to maintain enough pressure in its secondary landing fuel tank to supply two Raptor engines with enough fuel for a landing burn. Starship SN9 failed a few seconds before SN8 when one of the two Raptor engines needed for a flip and landing burn never ignited, causing the rocket to smash into the ground at an angle relative to SN8’s tail-down impact.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, Elon Musk eventually revealed his opinion that SN9’s engine-out failure was potentially avoidable and that SpaceX would change the way future Starships attempt to land in a bid to add more redundancy.
“While SpaceX obviously hasn’t spun around and fixed a complex Starship propulsion issue in a matter of days, Musk eventually revealed his opinion that he, his engineers, or some combination of both “were too dumb” to exploit one obvious way to mitigate the risk of engine failure during [Starship SN9’s] flip and landing. That ‘obvious’ tweak: reignite all three of Starship’s available landing engines, not just two.”
By igniting not just two – but all three – Raptor engines during Starship’s flip burn, SpaceX could essentially perform a midair static fire, giving the rocket’s flight computer a few seconds to analyze performance and downselect to the two healthiest engines for the final landing burn. With that change implemented, Starship would theoretically have enough redundancy to land if only two of its three sea-level Raptors performed nominally.
Currently installed on one of two ‘suborbital stands’ at SpaceX’s South Texas launch pad, Starship SN10 will be the first high-altitude prototype to attempt that three-engine flip burn and on-the-fly downselect. Musk says his confidence that SN10 will successfully land is now 60%, an almost twofold improvement over SN8. Starship SN10 could potentially fly as early as this week, though the prototype still needs to complete a nominal three-engine static fire test and the launch has yet to receive FAA approval.
Further down the road, Musk says that SpaceX is working hard to improve Raptor’s deep throttle performance, potentially allowing future Starships to burn two – or even three – engines all the way to touchdown for even more redundancy. Deep-throttling large, complex rocket engines is extraordinarily difficult, though, so that upgrade is likely no less than several months away. In the meantime, Starship SN11 is effectively complete and Starships SN15 through SN18 are being assembled to support a relentless flight test campaign as SpaceX works towards orbital flights.
News
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.
Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.
The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.
China EV market trends
The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.
Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market.
Tesla China’s strategies
To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.
Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
