News
Relativity’s first 3D-printed rocket aims to debut a new rocket fuel
Relativity can almost taste the vacuum of space. A substantial amount of work remains, but the startup continues to defy expectations with its relentless and methodical push towards the first orbital launch of a 3D-printed rocket.
Founded in 2015, the Los Angeles-based aerospace company has taken its few years of obligatory delays in stride while pursuing a 2020 debut for its (relatively) small Terran 1 rocket. In a world with dozens of serious rocket startups, missing one’s initial launch target is practically a rite of passage – the path to orbit is never as straight and bump-free as the highway on-ramps that are often promised in pitch decks. Relativity Space, however, is no average rocket startup.
Save for SpaceX, which operates in a league of its own, no other private rocket startup has come close to matching the $1.3 billion Relativity has raised to develop Terran 1 and the much larger Terran R. More importantly, in a recent interview with Aviation Week, CEO Tim Ellis (a former Blue Origin engineer) revealed that the company could be “weeks away” from the first launch of Terran 1, a rocket that is 85% 3D-printed by mass and could simultaneously debut a new kind of rocket fuel.
Once fully assembled, Terran 1 – weighing around 9.3 tons (~20,500 lb) empty and measuring 33.5 meters (110 ft) tall – will be the largest metal 3D-printed object in the history of the technology. From that perspective, it’s hardly surprising that Relativity Space is a few years behind schedule. In fact, it’s odd that the startup isn’t more delayed, and it’s even more impressive that Terran 1’s first launch campaign has gone as smoothly as it has.
Slow, Smooth and Fast
Terran 1 Flight 1’s booster stage and upper stage both arrived at the company’s leased Cape Canaveral Space Force Station LC-16 pad sometime in May 2022. Terran 1’s first stage came directly from the California factory. The second stage (S2), however, first shipped to a Mississippi test stand a few months prior and, on its first try, completed a full-duration multi-minute static fire test known as a mission duty cycle (MDC) – about as close as it’s possible to get to replicating orbital upper stage operations on the ground. The flawless MDC was preceded by a number of simpler precursor tests, of course, but the rocket performed more or less as expected throughout the entire qualification program. If Terran’s second stage ignites again, it’ll be at the edge of space.
Since June, the critical path for Terran 1’s launch debut has thus been qualifying the first finished Terran booster. Rather than modify its Mississippi test facilities, Relativity decided to temporarily modify its heavily upgraded LC-16 pad to support booster qualification testing. Thanks to the heroic work of a shockingly small team of five people, the pad was ready to kick off testing as soon as the Terran 1 booster arrived in Florida. Even more surprisingly, senior manager Lorenzo Locante says that LC-16 – practically a new pad after Relativity’s extensive modifications – has “performed perfectly” during every booster qualification test attempted thus far.
That testing has included pneumatic proofing (an ambient-temperature gas pressure test), possible cryogenic proof tests, multiple rounds of propellant loading, preignition testing of its nine Aeon engines, and multiple spin-start tests (the last step before static fire testing) with the same engines. Given that LC-16 and Terran 1 must handle cryogenic oxidizer (liquid oxygen) and cryogenic fuel (liquid methane), which can easily create a flammable and bomb-like mixture of gases from even the smallest of leaks, it’s difficult to emphasize just how difficult it is to ensure that a complex launch pad and rocket perform nominally during their first joint testing.
According to engineers onsite during a private Teslarati tour of Relativity’s Florida launch facilities, Terran 1 S1’s next goal is to fully ignite its Aeon engines. After one or more successful static fires, the booster will be integrated with the upper stage and nosecone for a final full-duration static fire test that will also double as a full wet dress rehearsal (WDR). Testing the fully-integrated Terran 1 rocket will only be possible once LC-16’s full strongback and launch mount (also known as a transporter/erector) is completed, but that final piece of the puzzle should be ready any day now.
De Terra Ad Astra
The coming weeks will likely be some of the company’s riskiest and most difficult yet. If the rocket and LC-16 continue to operate as smoothly as they have been, however, there’s a nonzero chance that Terran 1 could beat the likes of SpaceX (Starship), Blue Origin (New Glenn), and the United Launch Alliance (Vulcan Centaur) to the punch to become the first methane and oxygen-fueled rocket in history to attempt an orbital launch.*
*While SpaceX’s Starship is technically the first large-scale suborbital methalox rocket to attempt (and complete) a launch, there has never been an orbital methalox launch attempt.
Capable of carrying up to 1.25 tons (~2750 lb) to low Earth orbit for as little as $12 million, Terran 1 also has a shot at becoming the first new privately-developed 1-ton-class rocket of any kind to successfully reach orbit. On that front, though, Relativity is in a neck-and-neck race with Firefly Aerospace and ABL Space, both of which intend to launch similarly-sized rockets at some point in the next few months. It’s never been less clear who will cross the finish line first but one would be hard-pressed to count Relativity out.
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
