News
SpaceX wants to launch its next Starship ASAP
Contrary to recent comments from CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX appears to be forging ahead at full speed in a bid to launch its next Starship ASAP.
Known as Starship serial number 10 (SN10), the prototype is the latest in a series of four ships SpaceX has ultimately set aside from low(er)-altitude development testing. Starship SN8 – the first functional prototype to reach its full height – debuted on December 8th, 2020, blowing expectations out of the water with a failure mere seconds before the end of a more than six-minute flight test. According to Musk, had a fuel tank remained properly pressurized from start to finish, SN8 could have very well stuck the landing on the first try.
Two months later, after the better part of two weeks of licensing and static fire test delays, Starship SN9 attempted to carry the torch forward but suffered an unrelated failure slightly earlier than SN8’s. One of two Raptor engines failed to ignite for a high-risk flip and landing burn, causing the Starship to impact the ground even more violently than its predecessor. It’s unclear why the ill-fated Raptor failed to ignite or why the engine that did ignite appeared to experience a major failure shortly thereafter but rocket propulsion is extraordinarily difficult – and Raptor is near – or at – the end of that scale.
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 flip and landing. That ‘obvious’ tweak: reignite all three of Starship’s available landing engines, not just two.
In theory, with a fast-enough response time, Starship could ignite all three Raptors, perform a supercharged flip from a belly- to tail-down orientation, and selectively shut off one of the engines based on the data from what is essentially a midair static fire. In the event that all three engines are performing nominally, Starship would shut down the least useful engine (i.e. the Raptor with the least leverage) for a gentle two-engine landing burn.
That said, the ship landing burn has a clear solution. My greatest concern is achieving good payload to orbit with rapid & full reusability, without which we shall forever be confined to Earth.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2021
Impressively, Musk said that SpaceX would implement those changes immediately, attempting the first three-engine reignition as early as Starship SN10’s launch debut. Already at the launch pad when Starship SN9 lifted off, SpaceX revealed plans to launch SN10 as early as February 2021 at the end of SN9’s test flight webcast.
A few days prior to SN9’s ill-fated test flight, Musk had also stated that Starship SN10 would perform a “cryoproof” test and only then have its three Raptor engines installed. Instead, in an apparent change of plans, SpaceX installed Starship SN10’s Raptors – SN39, SN50, and an unknown third engine – from February 5th to 7th.
On Sunday, local longtime resident Mary (aka BocaChicaGal) received an official safety alert from SpaceX, signaling plans for an explosive Starship test of some kind as early as Monday, February 8th. Historically, those overpressure safety warnings have only been distributed when SpaceX is preparing for a Starship static fire attempt. In other words, it’s possible that Starship SN10’s very first test could be a live wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with flammable liquid oxygen and methane propellant. If that WDR goes well, SpaceX could move directly into a one, two, or three-engine static fire.
Of course, as SN9’s lengthy test period rubbed in, Starship is still in the prototype stage and is far from a mature system, meaning that it’s always safer to expect delays than an on-time performance. To be clear, it’s far more likely that SpaceX will perform a familiar “cryo proof” test with non-flammable liquid nitrogen – perhaps hoping to complete a cryoproof and static fire in the same test window.
Either way, stay tuned for updates and follow along with NASASpaceflight’s excellent live coverage in the event that SpaceX really is prepared to static fire Starship SN10 between 9am and 6pm CST (UTC-6) on Monday.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
