News
Tesla Model S Plaid fire: Strange observations and claims to date
Details about the Tesla Model S Plaid fire on Tuesday are starting to emerge. Similar to other dramatic electric vehicle fires, the details and observations emerging about the Tesla Model S Plaid fire are very interesting.
Accounts of the Model S Plaid fire have been shared by an EMT that reportedly responded to the incident, the chief fire officer for the Lower Merion Township Fire Department in Pennsylvania, and the lawyers representing the Model S Plaid owner.
With this in mind, it is pertinent to provide a view of what each party has stated about the incident so far. Going through each statement would potentially make it a lot easier to come up with a legitimate narrative in the future, especially as official investigations into the fire conclude. That being said, here are the accounts that have been shared on the Tesla Model S Plaid fire earlier this week.
What happened?
The Tesla Model S Plaid caught fire in Haverford, Pennsylvania on June 29, 2021. The vehicle, which was a Plaid variant based on the remains of its rear badge, was engulfed in flames when fire crews arrived. A Facebook post from the Gladwyne Volunteer Fire Company indicated that two fire engines were deployed for the incident. Firefighters were at the scene for about three hours, though the vehicle was cooled down for almost 90 minutes to ensure that the batteries were safe.
“Engine 24 with a crew of 7 arrived on scene simultaneously with Engine 25. Due to prior training classes on Tesla Vehicle Fire emergencies, Engine 24 laid a 5 inch supply line into the scene so that we could keep a continual water stream on the fire to extinguish the fire and cool the batteries down to ensure complete extinguishment. Engine 24 and Engine 25 both deployed hand lines to extinguish the fire, each maintained a dedicated water source and continued to cool the vehicle down for almost 90 minutes. Firefighters were on scene for just over 3 hours dealing with this emergency. Nobody was hurt in the incident, and both crews worked hard in the high heat/humidity to mitigate the incident,” the Gladwyne Volunteer Fire Company wrote.
Interestingly enough, this statement, as well as the Gladwyne Volunteer Fire Company’s Facebook post about the Model S Plaid fire has been taken offline. A look at the fire department’s Facebook page and its official website would reveal that the post about the Tesla fire has now been deleted.
A First Responder’s Account
As the story of the Model S Plaid fire gained ground, the incident started to attract a lot of attention on social media as well. On Reddit, u/wilyson, who claimed to be an EMT who responded to the fire, noted that the report they received about the incident was downright strange. According to the EMT, the person who reported the fire stated that the car was driving uphill without an occupant while it was ablaze. The owner was reportedly nowhere to be found. This was a rather dramatic image, and it promptly fueled speculations among the anti-EV crowd about “self-driving” cars catching fire.
Quite understandably, the EMT noted that he could not provide many details as the police are not releasing more information yet. That being said, the EMT later noted that car fires are very common and that electric vehicles are actually incredibly safe.
The Fire Chief’s Account
As noted in a CNBC report, chief fire officer for the Lower Merion Township Fire Department in Pennsylvania Charles McGarvey stated that the Tesla Model S caught fire on Tuesday while the driver was still at the wheel of the vehicle. According to the fire chief, firefighters eventually removed the Model S Plaid to a complex to safely store it overnight. The vehicle’s owner had since taken the remains of the vehicle from the facility, as per McGarvey, and will have the car investigated independently to determine the cause of the blaze.
The fire chief also stated that his teams had been in touch with Tesla and that some information about the incident should be made public soon. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesperson also noted that it was aware of the incident and that it is now in touch with relevant agencies and Tesla to gather more information about the fire. “If data or investigations show a defect or an inherent risk to safety exists, NHTSA will take action as appropriate to protect the public,” the NHTSA spokesperson said. The NTSB is not conducting an investigation to date.
The Lawyers’ Account
The Model S Plaid owner’s lawyers, Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles, and Jason Setchen of Athlete Defender in Miami, have since mobilized to share details about the incident as well. In a statement to CNBC, the attorneys stated that the Tesla owner initially noticed smoke coming from the back of the Model S Plaid. Following this, the owner reportedly tried to unlock and open the vehicle’s doors, but he ended up having to force his way out of the car as the locks seemed to malfunction. The lawyers noted that after the Tesla owner left his car, the Model S began to move on its own while flames engulfed it.
Geragos Global attorney Ben Meiselas later posted a tweet sharing an image of the burning Model S. As per the lawyer, “Our firm & @AthleteDefender represent an exec who purchased new Tesla Plaid Model S, which was 1/250 shipped. On Tuesday it spontaneously combusted. Our client was trapped & could have died. We tried reaching out to Tesla & have been ignored so far. This is car after escape.”
Interesting (and strange) details
Overall, the Model S Plaid fire in PA features a number of interesting accounts that may not necessarily line up perfectly. The EMT that initially shared details about the incident mentioned that the Model S owner was nowhere to be found. The lawyers, on the other hand, shared an image reportedly taken immediately after the owner escaped, suggesting that the Tesla owner was on the scene of the blaze. As per the Model S Plaid’s Owner’s Manual, the vehicle is also equipped with a manual door release that should make it easy for occupants to vacate the car in case of an emergency. This seems to be a bit overlooked by the owner’s lawyers, who noted that their client was trapped inside the car.
Of course, the idea of a car driving on its own uphill while being engulfed in flames is quite strange, considering that neither Tesla’s Autopilot nor Full Self-Driving suite have such features. The only function that may have worked similarly is Smart Summon, but the vehicle was burning on a public street, an area where Smart Summon should have been unavailable.
We’ll definitely keep a pulse on this incident, as well as any details that may emerge as investigations go on, so do keep Teslarati on your radar as we follow developments in this event.
Do you have anything to share with the Teslarati Team? We’d love to hear from you, email us at tips@teslarati.com.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
