News
SpaceX already clearing Starship debris, preparing for next rocket rollout
Update: Half a day after Starship serial number 10 (SN10) became the first prototype to land in one piece, SpaceX has begun clearing its remains and preparing to roll the next rocket to the launch pad.
Never one to rest on its laurels, SpaceX appears to be wasting no time moving forward from Starship SN10’s successful landing and subsequent explosion. Almost a month ago, SpaceX stacked SN10’s successor – Starship SN11 – to its full height and has spent the last four weeks closing out the virtually identical rocket. As of SN10’s launch debut, Starship SN11 has been more or less finished and ready to roll to the launch pad for at least a week.
At the same time as SpaceX teams have begun the process of recovering SN10’s remains, the company also transported a large crane to the launch site – the same crane used to install Starships SN8, SN9, and SN10 at the launch pad. Stay tuned for updates as SpaceX prepares SN11 for a fourth high-altitude launch and landing attempt – this time with the goal of keeping the rocket intact after landing.
In a classically spectacular fashion, a SpaceX Starship prototype has successfully touched down in one piece for the first time ever, only to explode minutes later after catching itself on fire.
Rolled from SpaceX Boca Chica Starship factory to test and launch facilities just a mile down the road on January 28th, Starship SN10 lifted off just five weeks later – the fastest factory-to-launch flow yet. The speed of that turnaround was mainly made possible thanks to an exceptionally smooth test campaign, passing cryogenic proof and static fire tests after only a few attempts.
Prior to its second launch attempt, Starship SN10 automatically aborted a few seconds prior to its first attempt after the rocket’s flight computer determined that its three Raptor engines were producing more thrust than expected. Within half an hour of the abort, CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to reveal the cause and stated that SpaceX would be tweaking the flight software’s thrust limits and recycling for another shot at launch around two hours later.
Up to the last 20 or so seconds of the 6.5-minute flight test, Starship SN10’s launch debut was virtually identical to Starships SN8 and SN9, both of which made it just one or two dozen seconds away from a soft landing. However, after SN9, SpaceX optimized the landing process to add additional redundancy, meaning that SN10 reignited all three of its Raptor engines – instead of just two – for its flip and landing burn.
Exactly as planned, SN10 fired up those engines, autonomously analyzed their performance, and then shut down two Raptors to leave the best-behaving engine to complete the final landing burn. Unlike SN8 and SN9, that maneuver went about as well as it could have, nearly slowing SN10 to a hover with one (seemingly) healthy engine to take it the rest of the way to the ground.
After all that heroic effort and for the first time ever, Starship SN10 proceeded to touch down in one piece. Through the eyes of a drone hovering far away from the launch complex, the landing couldn’t exactly be considered ‘soft,’ however, and SN10 impacted the landing zone with some substantial momentum – likely far too much for its tiny legs to handle.
However, more importantly, SN10 appeared to ignite one or two of its own gaseous oxygen or methane vents, triggering a fire that remained visible until well after the hard – but intact – landing. From official and unofficial views of the landed vehicle, Starship SN10 had a significant lean and appeared to have no more than a few inches to a foot of clearance between its aft skirt and the concrete pad. Remote-controlled firefighting spigots were able to extinguish any external sign of fire but that lack of clearance may have prevented the water from doing much inside the skirt, ultimately dooming Starship SN10.
Regardless of where exactly that fire ‘broke through,’ so to speak, the original cause of the fire – accidentally igniting a vent plume – is unlikely to be a hard problem to fix, and it’s safe to say that SN10’s intact landing is an extraordinary success for SpaceX. In its official webcast, SpaceX engineer John Insprucker confirmed that Starship SN11 is all but complete and could roll out to the launch pad to pick up where SN10 left off almost as soon as it’s safe to do so.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
