News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk arrives in Texas for milestone Starship engine test
On Saturday evening, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk landed in Waco, Texas – perhaps along with additional SpaceX propulsion engineers – for the critical static fire debut of the first “radically redesigned” Raptor engine, built to power BFR’s Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster.
If the first operationalized Raptor’s static fire tests go well, there are several possible routes the test program could take, all of which will end up with this engine and several others being tested and ultimately installed on the Starship hopper (Starhopper) prototype under construction roughly 500 miles (800 km) south of SpaceX’s Raptor test cell.
At @SpaceX Texas with engineering team getting ready to fire new Raptor rocket engine pic.twitter.com/ACFM8AtY8w
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 3, 2019
Shortly after Musk revealed official photos of the first operationalized Raptor preparing for an inaugural static fire test at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas facilities, the SpaceX and Tesla CEO’s private jet was seen landing at Waco, Texas around sunset. Although all SpaceX technical expertise needed for Raptor’s first ignition was probably already on site several days prior, Musk has been known to offer seats on his private planes to SpaceX and Tesla employees when a critical group is needed away from their normal base of operations. The best examples come from Tesla engineering expertise sometimes traveling between Fremont and Gigafactory 1 when needed, often to solve production holdups.
Regardless of whether he was traveling with members of the SpaceX propulsion team, Musk’s arrival at McGregor yesterday signified that Raptor Block 1’s first integrated hot-fire was imminent. Assuming no attempt was made on Saturday night or Sunday morning, SpaceX technicians and engineers are presumably still working on installing what is effectively a new rocket engine and ensuring that Raptor’s test cells – extensively overhauled and upgraded for the occasion – are working as intended. While the development Raptors SpaceX built hovered around 1000 kN (~100t) of thrust, also roughly the same as Merlin 1D, the Raptor now on stand in Texas is reportedly a 200 ton-class engine or more than double the thrust of any single engine SpaceX engineers and technicians have built or test-fired in 15 years of engine development.
-
- The only official render of Raptor, published by SpaceX in September 2016. The Raptor departing Hawthorne in Jan ’19 looked reasonably similar. (SpaceX)
-
- Technically speaking, this Raptor is the smaller (sea-level) version of the engine. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s current Texas facilities feature a test stand for Raptor, the engine intended to power BFR and BFS to Mars. (SpaceX)
-
- A Raptor prototype is seen here during its first-ever ignition test. (SpaceX)
-
- A 2017 test-firing of the mature development Raptor, roughly 50% less powerful than the full-scale system. (SpaceX)
A fork in the R&D road
Prior to completing Raptor Block 1 (unofficial designation), SpaceX cumulatively test-fired dev Raptors for far more than 1200 seconds over the course of more than 24 months. It’s unclear how extensively the company’s engineers will be able to test the pathfinder hardware built on the back of that extensive test program. Nominally, one would expect hundreds or thousands of seconds of additional testing to properly characterize the design and production of a brand-new, optimized engine like Raptor while primarily ensuring that it performs within engineering specifications.
Knowing CEO Elon Musk’s self-admitted tendency to push for impractical deadlines and schedules that often appeared rushed for the sake of rushing, it’s not impossible that the first Raptors could find themselves installed on the Boca Chica-based Starhopper test article after Merlin-esque acceptance testing and nothing more. For M1D and MVac, acceptance testing usually takes the shape of a full-duration burn with throttle and gimbal activity to closely simulate a true Falcon 9 or Heavy launch. For the 200-ton Raptor now in Texas, comparable acceptance testing could take a variety of forms, ranging from short Starhopper-relevant burns (10-60 seconds for small hops) to simulating conditions during a Super Heavy launch and landing or even a 6 or 7-minute orbital insertion burn indicative of the performance needed for Starship.
Depending on the interplay between the route SpaceX engineers would likely prefer and the Starhopper test schedule executives and managers might want, this first Raptor engine (and two more soon to follow) could be installed on Starhopper anywhere from a few weeks to several months from now. Elon Musk indicated in early January that he expected hop tests would occur 4-8 weeks later, shortly followed by unplanned damage to the craft’s nose cone that pushed the debut back “a few weeks”.
Aiming for 4 weeks, which probably means 8 weeks, due to unforeseen issues
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 5, 2019
I just heard. 50 mph winds broke the mooring blocks late last night & fairing was blown over. Will take a few weeks to repair.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2019
Realistically, hop tests should thus be expected to begin no earlier than (NET) 8-12 weeks from the first week of January, translating to NET March or April. This would give SpaceX propulsion engineers a decent amount of time to gain at least a few hundred (or maybe 1000+) seconds of experience operating the newest and most advanced iteration of Raptor.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
