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.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
News
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
Tesla’s unsupervised robotaxi fleet quietly grew sevenfold in three weeks just before Cybercab Day arrives.
Tesla’s unsupervised Robotaxi fleet has grown far faster than the public numbers suggested, and the timing lines up with the company’s biggest autonomy showcase yet. According to data compiled by the crowdsourced Robotaxi Tracker, Tesla now has nearly 200 vehicles operating without a safety monitor across Austin, Dallas and Houston, yielding a roughly 7X increase in about three weeks.
The jump lands four days before this week’s Tesla Cybercab launch event in Austin, where the company plans to show off its purpose-built, two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals in a live commercial setting for the first time. Stick with us on X and Facebook for live reporting from the event.
The strategic logic is straightforward. Tesla has spent the past year scaling Robotaxi in small, deliberate steps, first widening geofences, then extending operating hours, then quietly growing fleet size, usually with little advance notice. Ashok Elluswamy told investors on the Q2 earnings call that the program had logged more than 380,000 unsupervised miles with zero notable incidents, a safety record the company has leaned on to justify moving slowly. Critics have used the flip side of that caution, a fleet that appeared stuck around two dozen vehicles for months, as evidence that Tesla’s driverless ambitions were outrunning its actual deployment.
A fleet quietly scaling to nearly 200 vehicles right before Cybercab Day undercuts that argument without Tesla having to say anything about it directly. It also sets up the event to do double duty. Rather than simply introducing new hardware, Tesla can point to an operating base of unsupervised Model Ys already running at meaningful scale, then argue the Cybercab, which uses the same underlying Full Self-Driving stack according to earlier coverage of the fleet’s software upgrades, is a natural next steps. Tesla has separately been registering the two-seat Cybercabs with Texas regulators this week, with the count climbing from seven to 45 in a matter of days.
The two ramps, one in software-driven Model Y deployment and one in physical Cybercab registrations, are happening in parallel rather than in sequence. That suggests Tesla wants Thursday’s event to land as proof that the robotaxi business is already running at scale, not just a reveal of a new vehicle shape. Whether the unsupervised numbers hold up once Cybercabs start mixing into the same fleet is the detail worth watching once the event wraps.
Tesla is lowering the monthly price of its Cybertruck Windshield Protection Plan from $35 to $25. The new rate will apply to the first payment on or after October 1, 2026. Tesla has told subscribers that all other benefits stay the same.
The plan covers unlimited repairs for chips and minor cracks on the front windshield. It also includes one full replacement every 12 months at no extra charge. Additional replacements in the same year carry a $100 deductible. Service is performed with Tesla glass and camera calibration, which matters because Autopilot and Full Self-Driving rely on those lenses behind the windshield.
Looks like Tesla is decreasing the Cybertruck windshield protection plan price from $35 to $25
Awesome https://t.co/MRlTU1XTbf pic.twitter.com/PWkMZt1H7G
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 28, 2026
There is no long-term contract. Coverage applies only to the front glass and does not include collision, vandalism, or weather damage.
The Cybertruck’s large, complex windshield has been more expensive to replace than glass on Tesla’s cars, which is why the pickup started at a higher subscription price. The $10 monthly cut reduces the annual cost from $420 to $300. Tesla has not publicly explained the change. The timing coincides with a year of claims data after the plan was extended to the Cybertruck.
Tesla sells several related protection products as monthly subscriptions through the Tesla app. The Windshield Protection Plan is also offered on other models. Model 3 and Model Y currently cost $16 a month. Those passenger-car rates are unchanged in the latest Cybertruck notice.
The Wheel and Tire Protection Plan covers road-hazard damage such as potholes, nails, and debris. Repairs are unlimited. Each wheel or tire replacement appointment has a $25 deductible. Pricing varies by model and whether the vehicle is a Performance version. Tesla is raising some of those rates on the same October 1 date.
Reported examples include Model 3 Performance moving from $16 to $24 and Model Y Performance from $20 to $24. Cybertruck wheel-and-tire coverage has been listed at $20 a month for the standard configuration.
A separate Luxe Package bundles four years of windshield coverage, wheel-and-tire coverage, and recommended maintenance on certain new Model S, Model X, and Cyberbeast orders, although the Model S and X are now defunct.
Tesla also offers an Extended Service Agreement after the basic vehicle warranty ends. That product covers many Tesla-manufactured parts rather than glass or tires. Together, the plans give owners a menu of targeted, cancel-anytime coverage instead of relying only on auto insurance.
Elon Musk says SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed
Tesla surges Robotaxi fleet ahead of Cybercab launch event
