News
SpaceX’s Starhopper readies for more ambitious Raptor-powered flight tests
For the second time in two months, SpaceX technicians have begun to install a Raptor engine on Starhopper, a full-scale Starship testbed theoretically capable of low-velocity, moderate-altitude ‘hops’.
Back in late March, Raptor and Starhopper were joined for the first time, enabling a lengthy series of attempted tests that were followed by two engine ignitions and tethered hops before Raptor was removed for inspection. In the two months since that first round of integrated testing, SpaceX has significantly upgraded Starhopper and its spartan launch facilities, all focused on transforming the odd vehicle from a largely fixed test stand into a giant, mobile Grasshopper.
All the way back in 2012, SpaceX began testing Falcon 9 recovery and reusability concepts with a low-fidelity prototype known as Grasshopper – essentially a minimalist Falcon 9 first stage with ad hoc legs and a single Merlin engine. It supported a series of 8 major test flights – all successful and a source of valuable data – before the vehicle’s 2013 retirement. An upgraded Grasshopper – known instead as Falcon 9 Reusable Development Vehicle (F9R Dev1) – began testing around the same time and continued even higher altitude vertical takeoff/vertical landing (VTVL) tests until its untimely demise in August 2014.
Starhopper is quite similar, although it is also serving as a testbed for a far more varied range of technologies due to the fact that it has been developed before the inaugural launch of its namesake (Starship/Super Heavy). By the time SpaceX started Grasshopper/F9R tests, Falcon 9 had already completed several successful launches. With Starhopper, SpaceX is building and testing its first 9m-diameter ‘flight’ hardware, its first propellant tanks built out of steel, its first flight-capable rocket fueled by methane and oxygen, and its first mobile Raptor testbed, among numerous other things. The challenges are inherently much greater, but SpaceX has the luxury of taking the opposite approach it took towards Falcon 9 and building a launch vehicle entirely around its intended reusability, rather than trying to squeeze a method of reusability around an already-flying rocket.
Saurid Oddities
As noted by NASASpaceflight.com in a June 2nd article, SpaceX seems to be juggling its growing selection of newly-produced and tested Raptor engines in pursuit of Starhopper’s return to flight. According to the publication’s reliable sources,
“Up until recently, [SpaceX] was planning to utilize Raptor SN4 for [Starhopper’s first] untethered hops. However, the company has now decided to utilize this engine only for fit checks, and will instead perform the hops with SN5 – the latest Raptor to come out of SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California.” – NASASpaceflight.com, June 2nd, 2019
This indicates that the Raptor engine delivered to Boca Chica on June 1st and currently in the process of being installed on Starhopper is actually more of a stand-in* for a future Raptor, SN05. The reasons behind this Raptor shuffle elude detection, but it’s possible that the simplest explanation – also posed by NASASpaceflight – is the correct one. By shipping a Raptor that may not be ready for flight tests, SpaceX could likely save anywhere from a few days up to a few weeks by doing everything short of lifting off under the powered of Raptor SN04.
*By all appearances, SN04 is a flight-grade Raptor that has completed assembly and likely been test-fired in McGregor, Texas. Why it may currently be resigned to a “stand-in” role is unknown.
It appears that the Raptor engine is not centered, could it be that they are going straight with the 3 engine test. (Idk honestly, I wonder why this is?) @elonmusk are things about to get epic?? pic.twitter.com/sne5v7SMhy— Austin Barnard? (@austinbarnard45) June 1, 2019
Very curiously, upon Raptor SN04’s South Texas arrival, it appears that SpaceX technicians have indeed rapidly installed the engine on Starhopper, but in a position that is decidedly off-center. Pictured above, the photo could have simply caught the engine while technicians were moving it to its actual installation spot, but it could also indicate that SpaceX is speeding towards Starhopper’s first triple-Raptor test flights.
Starhopper delays?
In line with the last-second switch from Raptor SN04 to Raptor SN05 as the engine-to-be for untethered hops, SpaceX has pushed the start of that test series from approximately May 31st to June 11th. More likely than not, the ~11-day delay is meant to allow time for Raptor SN05’s McGregor, Texas acceptance testing, given that – per CEO Elon Musk – the engine wasn’t even finished as of May 22nd.
On the other hand, with Raptor SN05 now scheduled to support Starhopper hop tests as early as mid-June, it begs the question of whether SpaceX is instead working towards expedited triple-Raptor testing. For unknown reasons, neither Raptor SN03 or SN04 are apparently ready to support flight operations, although both have been thoroughly hot-fired in McGregor. Perhaps each engine is a distinct prototype with a different level of experimental readiness, or perhaps SpaceX is just testing certain engines (like SN03) more extensively than others (SN05).
Regardless, SpaceX now seems to have 3-4 intact, functional Raptor engines (excluding SN01; destroyed during stress testing), 2-3 of which are actively testing or being worked on a day’s drive north of Boca Chica. SN02 – having successfully supported a brief duo of ignition tests with Starhopper – could still be intact and test-ready. SN03 is an unknown quantity, but SN04 is clearly in excellent shape and is probably close to flight-readiness if it isn’t already. This is to say that SpaceX likely already has three Raptors on hand that are capable of supporting multi-engine Starhopper testing, whether or not such a test regime would actually be valuable.
Musk has noted that both orbit-capable Starship prototypes will be far closer to finished products and will thus fly with “at least 3 engines” (3 sea level engines, as it would turn out) or even “all 6” (3 sea level, 3 vacuum-optimized). In the meantime, Starhopper stands with an off-centered Raptor, awaiting the arrival of a different Raptor to kick off a second hop test program. If nothing else, SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy development program is operating in a spectacularly hardware-rich fashion, lending itself to the breakneck-pace of iteration and improvement SpaceX is famous for.
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
