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’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
