News
Elon Musk says SpaceX making good progress on Starship’s upgraded Raptor 2 engines
As is routine, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has taken to Twitter to offer a few details about the status of Starship, its Raptor engines, and a few upgrades planned for both.
In mid-December, Musk revealed even more ambitious plans to upgrade Starship by stretching its propellant tanks and adding another three Raptor engines, potentially boosting the ship’s maximum thrust by 50% and substantially improving payload performance. These latest details are focused on an upgraded version of the Raptor engine and on additional changes to Starship’s structural design and assembly process.
According to Musk, as SpaceX continues to ramp up ground testing of the upgraded engine variant, “Raptor 2 now operates routinely at 300 bar main chamber pressure.” For context, on February 10th, 2019, just days after SpaceX began testing the first full-scale Raptor prototype ever completed, the engine briefly reached a main combustion chamber pressure just shy of 269 bar (3900 psi). That narrowly beat records set by Russia’s RD-270 and RD-180 engines, the latter of which is used on ULA’s Atlas V.
It took 18 months before Musk revealed clear proof that at least one Raptor prototype sustained such high chamber pressures over a minute or more of steady-state operations. The same engine peaked at an impressive 330 bar (~4800 psi), briefly producing 225 tons (~500,000 lb) of thrust and soundly beating out Russia’s never flown RD-701 engine, which crested 290-300 bar in testing. Another ~18 months after that milestone, Raptor isn’t quite operational in the sense of supporting orbital-class launches but the engine isn’t far from its first and has since supported dozens of Starship static fires and seven flight tests – five of which occurred in a period of just six months.
Already, despite the fact that Raptor 1 or 1.5 engines have yet to even attempt an orbital-class launch, SpaceX has almost entirely moved on to a new and improved variant known as Raptor 2. According to Musk, all Raptor ground testing at the company’s McGregor, Texas development campus is now focused on the new hardware, which reportedly features much cleaner plumbing and wiring. The biggest change to Raptor 2, though, is an almost 25% increase in maximum nominal thrust over Raptor 1/1.5 – from around 185 to 230 tons (408,000-507,000 lbf). That’s partially enabled by widening the ‘throat’ of Raptor’s nozzle, which sacrifices a small amount of efficiency for more power density. However, Raptor 2 also contains design improvements throughout to enable sustained, reliable operation at chamber pressures up to 300 bar – 10% higher than Raptor 1.5.
On October 24th, Musk subtly live-tweeted one of the first Raptor 2 static fires, revealing that the engine reached a chamber pressure of 321 bar (~4650 psi) and briefly produced around 245 tons (~540,000 lbf) of thrust before destroying itself. Now, a little over two months later, Musk says that Raptor 2 prototypes are routinely operating at 300 bar without major issues, meaning that they can ignite and safely shut down after burning for several minutes at those pressures. In theory, given that 300 bar is Raptor 2’s targeted chamber pressure at max thrust, that means that the engine is now “routinely” operating at the level SpaceX wants and needs to take Starship to the next level.
It’s likely that one or several months of work remain before SpaceX can begin qualifying the first Raptor 2 engines (or, more importantly, hypothetical Raptor 2 Vacuum or Boost variants) for the first Starship or Super Heavy prototypes designed for the new engine. Nonetheless, the rapid progress SpaceX has made in the first few months of Raptor 2 testing is extremely encouraging.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
