News
[Update: Scrubbed] SpaceX Starship to attempt same-day static fire and launch
Update: Starship SN11 did manage a timely static fire around 8am CDT but after hours of work, SpaceX appears to have scrubbed a Friday, March 26th launch attempt.
SpaceX’s website has yet to be updated and Friday’s FAA TFR is still active but a road closure meant to last until 7:30 pm CDT to cover the static fire and launch was retracted after the highway was reopened around 2:45 pm. It’s unclear what caused the scrub but weather or technical issues from the static fire are two likely candidates. SpaceX still has TFRs active on Saturday and Sunday, but the company hasn’t tested or flown on a weekend in months.
Lacking only an official confirmation, SpaceX appears to be readying the fourth full-size Starship prototype to attempt a Raptor static fire test and launch on the same day.
That hopeful day in question happens to be today – Friday, March 26th. If all goes according to plan, Starship serial number SN11 will fire up its three Raptors, verifying their health after an engine was apparently swapped out on Wednesday. Possibly just an hour or two later, after detanking and retanking liquid oxygen and methane propellant, the Starship prototype could lift off on SpaceX’s fourth high-altitude test flight.
Late on March 24th, SpaceX rolled Raptor engine SN46 from its Boca Chica factory to the launch pad, where Starship SN11 is installed on one of two suborbital launch mounts. The engine move and subsequent installation came as a surprise, as nobody managed to catch an implied Starship SN11 engine removal in the two or three days prior (extremely thick fog being the likeliest cause).
The implied issue with the Raptor that was removed is likely to blame for a several-day launch delay that followed Starship’s seemingly successful Monday static fire. After that test, SN11’s launch was initially scheduled as early as Tuesday or Wednesday, only to slip day by day as the week proceeded. SN11 first rolled to the launch pad on March 8th, just 18 days ago, so launch delays don’t come as a huge surprise given that the current factory-to-launch record for a three-engine Starship is 33 days, three static fires, and one engine swap.
If SN11 manages a same-day static fire and launch on March 26th, it will still crush that record by almost 50%. To an extent, the feat also isn’t unprecedented. On March 3rd, Starship SN10 aborted its first true launch attempt milliseconds after Raptor ignition when the rocket’s flight computer detected indications that they were producing too much thrust. Amazingly, instead of scrubbing the launch attempt, SpaceX loosened Starship SN10’s thrust limit parameters and tried again, successfully lifting off just three hours after the abort.
Despite the abort and immediate hands-free recycle, Starship SN10 subsequently became the first prototype of its kind to launch to 10 km (6.2 mi), free-fall back to earth, and land in one piece. Minutes later, a fire and harder landing than expected conspired to make SN10 explode, but the test flight was arguably still a massive success. Simultaneously, the flight indicated that Starships are technically capable of successfully flying hours after a post-ignition launch abort, demonstrating an extraordinary level of robustness for clustered high-performance rocket engines.
As such, while it’s probably reasonable to assume that Starship SN11 wont launch today, SN10 proved that there is nonzero chance of a static fire and launch hours apart. Additionally, given just how close SN10 go to unequivocal success (i.e. a soft and survivable landing), Starship SN11 has the best chance yet at at launching, landing, and making it through the ordeal without exploding.
Starship SN11’s third static fire and first launch attempt are both currently scheduled sometime between 7am and 7:30pm CDT (UTC-5). Stay tuned for updates as we wait for SpaceX’s official confirmation and an evacuation notice of Boca Chica Village residents.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.
Elon Musk
Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption
The real story behind the tunneling startup’s Nashville tunnel project is the company’s targeted $25 million per mile construction cost.
Recent commentary on social media has highlighted what could very well prove to be The Boring Company’s real disruption.
The analysis was shared by tech watcher Aakash Gupta on social media platform X, where he argued that the real story behind the tunneling startup’s Nashville tunnel project is the company’s targeted $25 million per mile construction cost.
According to Gupta’s breakdown, Nashville’s 2018 light rail proposal was priced at roughly $200 million per mile. New York’s East Side Access project reportedly cost about $3.5 billion per mile, while Los Angeles Metro expansion projects have approached $1 billion per mile.
By comparison, The Boring Company has stated it can construct 13 miles of twin tunnels in the Music City Loop for between $240 million and $300 million total. That implies a cost near $25 million per mile, or roughly a 95% reduction from industry averages cited in the post.
Several technical departures from conventional tunneling allow the Boring Company to lower its costs, from its smaller 12-foot diameter tunnels to its fully electric Prufrock machines that are designed to mine continuously with no personnel inside the tunnel and their capability to “porpoise” for easy launch and retrieval.
Tesla and Space CEO Elon Musk responded to the post on X, stating simply that “Tunnels are so underrated.”
The Boring Company has seen some momentum as of late, with the company recently signing a construction contract in Dubai and the Universal Orlando Loop progressing. Recent reports have also pointed to tunnels potentially being constructed to solve traffic congestion issues near the Giga Nevada area.
While The Boring Company’s tunnels have so far been used for Loop systems publicly for now, Elon Musk recently noted that the tunneling startup’s underground passages would not be limited only to ride-hailing vehicles.
In a reply to a post on X which discussed the specifications of the Music City Loop, Musk clarified that “any fully autonomous electric cars can use the tunnels.” This suggests that vehicles potentially running systems like FSD Supervised, even if they are not Teslas, could be used in systems like the Music City Loop in the future.
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
