News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says major Starship engine bug is fixed as Raptor testing continues
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed the latest official photo of the company’s Raptor engine in action and indicated that a major technical issue with vibration appears to have been solved, hopefully paving the way for Starhopper’s first untethered flights.
Partly due to Musk’s own involvement in the program, SpaceX’s propulsion development team have struggled to get any single Raptor engine to survive more than 50-100 seconds of cumulative test fires. According to information from sources familiar with the program, Musk has enforced an exceptionally hardware-rich development program for the first full-scale Raptor engines to such an extent that several have been destroyed so completely that they could barely be used to inform design optimization work. Although likely more strenuous and inefficient than it needed to be, the exceptionally hardware-rich test program appears to have begun to show fruit, with the sixth engine built (SN06) passing its first tests without exhibiting signs of a problem that has plagued most of the five Raptors that came before it.
Resonance: not even once
In his tweet, Musk cryptically noted that a “600 Hz Raptor vibration problem” appears to have been fixed as of SN06’s first few static fire tests since arriving in McGregor, Texas. More likely than not, the self-taught SpaceX executive is referring to the hell that is mechanical resonance in complex machines and structures. Shown below, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge’s 1940 collapse – quite possibly the single most famous civil engineering failure of all time – is an iconic example of the unintuitive power of resonance in complex systems.
When it was inaugurated, the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge was one of the longest suspension bridges ever built and implemented new techniques and technologies that had never been tried at such a large scale. As Grady (Practical Engineer) aptly notes, mechanical resonance – in this case, triggered by consistent winds running through the Puget Sound – simply wasn’t something that period engineers knew they had to worry about. When rapidly pushing the envelope of engineering and construction, the chances of discovering entirely novel failure modes also increases – it’s simply one of the costs of extreme innovation.
Luckily for SpaceX, the company doesn’t have to clash with the immense challenge of testing something as large, complex, and expensive as a suspension bridge. Raptor, Starship, and Super Heavy need not necessarily be perfect on SpaceX’s first try, whereas civil bridges must essentially be flawless on the first try, despite being one of a kind. This is why SpaceX has been chewing through an average of one Raptor engine per month since February 2019 – by testing engines to destruction and aggressively comparing engineering expectations with observed behavior and post-test hardware conditions, rapid progress can (theoretically) be made.
Instead of spending another year or more analyzing models and testing subscale engines and components, SpaceX dove into integrated testing of a sort of minimum-viable-product Raptor design, accepting that the path to a flightworthy, finalized design would likely be paved with one or several dozen destroyed engines. According to Musk, the biggest pressing design deficiency involved a mode of mechanical resonance that may or may not have been predicted over the course of the design process. Dealing with unprecedented conditions, it’s not particularly surprising that some sort of new resonance mode was discovered in Raptor.
For the time being, SpaceX continues to work around the clock to build its first two orbital Starship prototypes (one in Texas, one in Florida), while also outfitting Starhopper and completing any possible engine-less tests in anticipation of the first flightworthy Raptor’s arrival. If Musk’s early analysis proves correct and Raptor SN06 makes it through lengthier static fire tests unscathed over the next week or so, the engine could potentially be delivered to Boca Chica as early as mid-July.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
