News
SpaceX sets dates for Starship static fire, high-altitude launch debut
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX is set to attempt one final Raptor engine static fire test before putting Starship through its high-altitude launch debut later this week.
Liable to begin as soon as November 30th per public road closure notices, Musk says that Starship serial number 8’s (SN8) launch debut – both Starship’s first fully-assembled flight test and first high-altitude launch attempt – is now scheduled no earlier than (NET) 8 am to 5 pm CST (UTC-6) on Wednesday, December 2nd.
November 30th will instead host what is believed to be a unique kind of static fire test for Starship SN8, hopefully proving that the rocket has a decent shot at surviving its risky launch debut.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, SpaceX’s Starship development strategy means that SN8’s survival is far less important than it may seem.
“On November 25th, Starship SN9 (featuring “small improvements”) was stacked to its full 50-meter (~165 ft) height. If SN8 is destroyed during testing, SN9 will likely be ready to roll to the launch site almost as soon as the dust settles.
Meanwhile, Starship SN10 is likely just 7-10 days away from a similar nosecone stacking milestone, and Starship SN11’s tank section is just one stack away from completion, likely putting it less than two weeks behind SN10. In other words, insofar as speed is a priority and each prototype is anywhere close to as cheap as Starship’s majority-steel bill of materials might suggest, SpaceX is building Starships so quickly that it almost doesn’t make sense to spend more than a few weeks working through bugs on any single suborbital ship.”
Teslarati.com — November 25th, 2020
In fact, delaying SN8’s launch to try to refine the rocket in situ and better ensure success could actually be to the detriment of successive prototypes and the Starship program in general. If, for example, a fundamental design flaw is revealed in Starship SN8 only after the prototype’s first test flight, SpaceX could be forced to scrap a huge amount of work done on as many as six, seven, eight, or even more subsequent prototypes. In that since, while it may seem like caution maximizes the value any single Starship prototype can provide SpaceX, that’s only true as long as the Starship design is mature enough that new fundamental flaws are unlikely to arise.
Given how young SpaceX’s agile Starship development program is, it would make very little sense to hinge months of work and more than half a dozen rocket prototypes on the quality and success of a less mature prototype unless all the vehicles in question are more or less identical final products. SN8 through SN15+ are certainly not final products in the sense that Starship is meant to be the largest reusable orbital spacecraft ever built.
As such, the Starship program is probably better off if SpaceX pushes vehicles to failure as quickly as reasonably possible. Having now spent more than two months at the launch pad while no less than three full-scale prototypes rapidly approach a similar level of completion, Starship SN8’s test flow is likely an overcorrection from a haphazardly rushed schedule to extreme caution.
Along those lines, SpaceX is now hopefully set on launching Starship SN8 within the near future. First, though, the company apparently plans to attempt another Raptor engine static fire test on Monday, November 30th. Scheduled between 7 am and 9 pm CST, the test has been described as a “handoff” static fire, referring to the process of switching each Raptor engine’s propellant feed from Starship’s main tank to much smaller ‘header’ tanks reserved for landings.
What exactly that handoff refers to is unclear. It could mean that SN8 will switch from main tanks to header tanks during a Raptor static fire test, though it’s unclear why that capability would be necessary unless Starship’s current header tank design is too small. “Handoff” could also refer to the process of switching between main and header tanks between Raptor operations – far more likely. In other words, Starship SN8’s Monday testing might involve two back-to-back static fires, performed with no human intervention. If successful, such a handoff static fire would simultaneously test Starship’s ability switch propellant sources and perform multiple Raptor engine ignitions – both necessary for a launch and landing.
Musk himself believes that Starship SN8 has a ~33% chance of successfully launching, reaching apogee, stably ‘skydiving’ ~14 km (~9 mi) back to Earth, reigniting Raptor engines, and landing in one piece. It’s unclear what will happen in the seemingly unlikely event that SN8 survives, but Starship SN9 is practically nipping at the relatively ancient prototype’s heels.
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
