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.
Tesla executive Sendil Palani confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Full Self-Driving, despite being the most robust driver assistance program in the United States, still isn’t garnering any interest from lagging competitors.
Tesla has said on several occasions in the past that it has had discussions with a competing carmaker to license its Full Self-Driving suite. While it never confirmed which company it was, many pointed toward Ford as the one Tesla was holding dialogue with.
At the time, Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had a very cordial relationship.
Despite Tesla’s confirmation, which occurred during both the Q2 2023 and Q1 2024 Earnings Calls, no deal was ever reached. Whichever “major OEM” Tesla had talked to did not see the benefit. Even now, Tesla has not found that dance partner, despite leading every company in the U.S. in self-driving efforts by a considerable margin.
Elon Musk says Tesla Robotaxi launch will force companies to license Full Self-Driving
Palani seemed to confirm that Tesla still has not found any company that is remotely interested in licensing FSD, as he said on X that “despite our best efforts to share the technology,” the company has found that it “has not been proven to be easy.”
Licensing FSD has not proven to be easy, despite our best efforts to share the technology. https://t.co/VGYBU7Aduw
— Sendil Palani (@sendilpalani) February 3, 2026
The question came just after one Tesla fan on X asked whether Tesla would continue manufacturing vehicles.
Because Tesla continues to expand its lineup of Model Y, it has plans to build the Cybercab, and there is still an immediate need for passenger vehicles, there is no question that the company plans to continue scaling its production.
However, Palani’s response is interesting, especially considering that it was in response to the question of whether Tesla would keep building cars.
Perhaps if Tesla could license Full Self-Driving to enough companies for the right price, it could simply sell the suite to car companies that are building vehicles, eliminating the need for Tesla to build its own.
While it seems like a reach because of Tesla’s considerable fan base, which is one of the most loyal in the automotive industry, the company could eventually bail on manufacturing and gain an incredible valuation by simply unlocking self-driving for other manufacturers.
The big question regarding why Tesla can’t find another company to license FSD is simply, “Why?”
Do they think they can solve it themselves? Do they not find FSD as valuable or effective? Many of these same companies didn’t bat an eye when Tesla started developing EVs, only to find themselves years behind. This could be a continuing trend.
Tesla executive Lars Moravy appeared today in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to highlight the importance of modernizing autonomy standards by establishing a federal framework that would reward innovation and keep the country on pace with foreign rivals.
Moravy, who is Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, strongly advocated for Congress to enact a national framework for autonomous vehicle development and deployment, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state rules.
These rules have slowed progress and kept companies fighting tooth-and-nail with local legislators to operate self-driving projects in controlled areas.
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
Moravy said the new federal framework was essential for the U.S. to “maintain its position in global technological development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
He also said in a warning to the committee that outdated regulations and approval processes would “inhibit the industry’s ability to innovate,” which could potentially lead to falling behind China.
Being part of the company leading the charge in terms of autonomous vehicle development in the U.S., Moravy highlighted Tesla’s prowess through the development of the Full Self-Driving platform. Tesla vehicles with FSD engaged average 5.1 million miles before a major collision, which outpaces that of the human driver average of roughly 699,000 miles.
Moravy also highlighted the widely cited NHTSA statistic that states that roughly 94 percent of crashes stem from human error, positioning autonomous vehicles as a path to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries.
🚨 Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering, Lars Moravy, appeared today before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to discuss the importance of outlining an efficient framework for autonomous vehicles:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 4, 2026
Skeptics sometimes point to cybersecurity concerns within self-driving vehicles, which was something that was highlighted during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, but Moravy said, “No one has ever been able to take over control of our vehicles.”
This level of security is thanks to a core-embedded central layer, which is inaccessible from external connections. Additionally, Tesla utilizes a dual cryptographic signature from two separate individuals, keeping security high.
Moravy also dove into Tesla’s commitment to inclusive mobility by stating, “We are committed with our future products and Robotaxis to provide accessible transportation to everyone.” This has been a major point of optimism for AVs because it could help the disabled, physically incapable, the elderly, and the blind have consistent transportation.
Overall, Moravy’s testimony blended urgency about geopolitical competition, especially China, with concrete safety statistics and a vision of the advantages autonomy could bring for everyone, not only in the U.S., but around the world, as well.
Tesla launched a new configuration of the Model Y this week, bringing more complexity to its lineup of the vehicle and adding a new, lower entry point for those who require an All-Wheel-Drive car.
However, the broadening of the Model Y lineup in the United States could signal a somewhat uncomfortable reality for Tesla fans and car buyers, who have been vocal about their desire for a larger, full-size SUV.
Tesla has essentially moved in the opposite direction through its closure of the Model X and its continuing expansion of a vehicle that fits the bill for many, but not all.
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
While CEO Elon Musk has said that there is the potential for the Model Y L, a longer wheelbase configuration of the vehicle, to enter the U.S. market late this year, it is not a guarantee.
Instead, Tesla has prioritized the need to develop vehicles and trim levels that cater to the future rollout of the Robotaxi ride-hailing service and a fully autonomous future.
But the company could be missing out on a massive opportunity, as SUVs are a widely popular body style in the U.S., especially for families, as the tighter confines of compact SUVs do not support the needs of a large family.
Although there are other companies out there that manufacture this body style, many are interested in sticking with Tesla because of the excellent self-driving platform, expansive charging infrastructure, and software performance the vehicles offer.
Additionally, the lack of variety from an aesthetic and feature standpoint has caused a bit of monotony throughout the Model Y lineup. Although Premium options are available, those three configurations only differ in terms of range and performance, at least for the most part, and the differences are not substantial.
Minor Expansions of the Model Y Fail to Address Family Needs for Space
Offering similar trim levels with slight differences to cater to each consumer’s needs is important. However, these vehicles keep a constant: cargo space and seating capacity.
Larger families need something that would compete with vehicles like the Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition, or Cadillac Escalade, and while the Model X was its largest offering, that is going away.
Tesla could fix this issue partially with the rollout of the Model Y L in the U.S., but only if it plans to continue offering various Model Y vehicles and expanding on its offerings with that car specifically. There have been hints toward a Cyber-inspired SUV in the past, but those hints do not seem to be a drastic focus of the company, given its autonomy mission.
Model Y Expansion Doesn’t Boost Performance, Value, or Space
You can throw all the different badges, powertrains, and range ratings on the same vehicle, it does not mean it’s going to sell better. The Model Y was already the best-selling vehicle in the world on several occasions. Adding more configurations seems to be milking it.
The true need of people, especially now that the Model X is going away, is going to be space. What vehicle fits the bill of a growing family, or one that has already outgrown the Model Y?
Not Expanding the Lineup with a New Vehicle Could Be a Missed Opportunity
The U.S. is the world’s largest market for three-row SUVs, yet Tesla’s focus on tweaking the existing Model Y ignores this. This could potentially result in the Osborne Effect, as sales of current models without capturing new customers who need more seating and versatility.
Expansions of the current Model Y offerings risk adding production complexity without addressing core demands, and given that the Model Y L is already being produced in China, it seems like it would be a reasonable decision to build a similar line in Texas.
Listening to consumers means introducing either the Model Y L here, or bringing a new, modern design to the lineup in the form of a full-size SUV.
Tesla confirms Full Self-Driving still isn’t garnering interest from lagging competitors
Tesla exec pleads for federal framework of autonomy to U.S. Senate Committee
