News
SpaceX Starship aborts Raptor engine test, briefly catches fire
Update: On March 15th, SpaceX got within milliseconds of Starship serial number 11’s (SN11) first Raptor engine test but suffered an abort just before full ignition, briefly leaving the rocket on fire.
Around 12:26 pm CDT, after an otherwise nominal static fire flow, Starship SN11 momentarily ignited one or two of its three Raptor engines’ preburners, referring to a central component that burns cryogenic liquid propellant into gas that’s ready for combustion. As with all preburner tests, intentional or otherwise, the end result looked a bit like a weak static fire and produced a small but visible amount of flame and thrust. Unlike intentional preburner tests, the static fire abort seemingly ignited something hidden inside Starship SN11’s and appeared to burn for at least another 30-40 seconds.
Raptor has proven itself to be an extremely durable engine, up to and including surviving visible onboard fires during actual Starship flight tests. Nevertheless, depending on the source of SN11’s post-abort fire and what it may or may not have burned or damaged, it’s no surprise that SpaceX ended testing for the day instead of quickly trying again, which it’s done several times prior. If the fire was largely harmless, SpaceX has already distributed notices suggesting a second attempt could happen as early as 6am to 12pm CDT (UTC-5) on Tuesday, March 16th. If more time is needed, SpaceX has the rest of the week to conduct any necessary repairs or swap out SN11’s Raptor engines.
Public documents show that SpaceX has plans to static fire and launch its latest Starship prototype within a two-day period that could begin later today.
SpaceX shipped Starship SN11 from its Boca Chica, Texas rocket factory to test and launch facilities a mile down the road on March 8th, less than five days after Starship SN10 exploded minutes after touchdown. The very next day, SpaceX completed ambient-temperature proof testing, filling Starship with benign nitrogen gas to check for leaks and verify system health. Two days after that, Starship SN11 appeared to complete a several-hour cryogenic proof test – swapping nitrogen gas for its supercool liquid form – without issue.
Despite the seemingly successful ‘cryo proof,’ something prevented a subsequent static fire test planned on March 12th before any attempt could be made, delaying the next attempt until after the approaching weekend. An agreement between SpaceX, Cameron County, and the state of Texas currently prevents road closures (and thus rocket testing) on weekends falling between Labor Day and Memorial Day, rules meant to preserve some level of public access to Boca Chica Beach.
As a result, unless SpaceX is already ready to launch (it has waivers for three such weekend closures for launch attempts), the company has to wait until Monday even if a minor issue fixable in hours or a day or so scrubs Friday test plans. While inconvenient, it’s worth noting that the existence of that public beach and the strong regulations that protect its public domain is likely one of the only reasons the general public can still get as close as they can to SpaceX’s Boca Chica ‘Starbase’.
For whatever reason, that road closure agreement does still mean that SpaceX will (in theory) be able to test and launch any day of the week from May 31st to September 6th, save for a few holidays, effectively boosting the number of opportunities by 40% for those 14 weeks. Until then, SpaceX is doing everything it can to take full advantage of the five days a week it is allowed to test Starship prototypes. N
Notably, although Starships SN8 and SN9 both hit a few weeks of technical and regulatory snags while preparing for their high-altitude launch attempts, SpaceX has been gradually speeding up that process over time. Starship SN10, the first prototype of its kind to land in one piece, took just 33 days to go from pad arrival to liftoff and spent just 8 days between its first static fire and launch attempts. The same feats took Starship SN8 77 and 50 days, respectively, with SN9 splitting the difference at 43 days from transport to liftoff and 28 days between its first static fire and launch attempts.
Road closure requests, a safety warning for residents, and a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) filed with the FAA all suggest that SpaceX’s current plan is to attempt Starship SN11’s first triple-Raptor static fire between 6am and 12pm CDT on Monday, March 15th. If that test goes almost perfectly, SpaceX wants to turn the rocket around for a 10 km (6.2 mi) launch attempt on Tuesday, March 16th – the very next day. Given the past performance of high-altitude Starship prototypes, that target is decidedly ambitious and likely to incur delays, but it still reveals the true scope of SpaceX’s goals even at this early stage of development.
If Starship SN11 does manage to launch within a few days of its first static fire attempt, SpaceX would still crush SN10’s 33-day record by a factor of three. Stay tuned for updates on Monday’s possible Starship static fire and rapid Tuesday turnaround attempt
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
