News
SpaceX installs Raptor Vacuum engine on first orbital-class Starship
Update: Providing the best views yet of the Raptor Vacuum installation process, SpaceX began installing one of Starship S20’s six engines (one of at least two recently trucked to the launch site) on Monday morning.
It remains to be seen exactly how many engines will be installed on Ship 20 or how many will be ignited during its first static fire test but barring the delivery of more Raptors, signs currently point to an initial test of two engines – one sea-level-optimized Raptor Center (RC) and one Raptor Vacuum with a much larger nozzle. Whenever Ship 20 does fire up those engines, it will be the first static fire of a RVac engine installed on a Starship and the first simultaneous, side-by-side static fire of two different Raptor variants. Since publishing time, SpaceX has cancelled a Tuesday road closure, pushing Starship S20’s first static fire attempt to no earlier than (NET) Wednesday evening.
For the third time in two months, SpaceX has begun installing Raptor engines on its first orbital-class Starship prototype – hopefully for good.
In no uncertain terms, Starship 20’s (S20) path to what could be its last Raptor installations has been about as windy and mysterious as they come. Starship 20 (S20) left the Starbase factory floor for the first time in early August – all six Raptors installed in another program first – for a brief fit check and photo op. After spending about an hour installed on top of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4), Ship 20 was removed and returned to the build site, where teams removed all six engines and finished wiring and plumbing the vehicle.
Days before the ship’s long-anticipated trip to Starbase’s suborbital launch site for qualification testing, the mount SpaceX prepared for the process quickly had hydraulic rams – used to safely simulate Raptor thrust – were abruptly removed. Starship S20 was then installed on the Pad B mount, where SpaceX proceeded to reinstall six Raptors. Weeks later, after slow heat shield repairs neared completion, SpaceX again removed Ship 20’s Raptors and reinstalled the hydraulic rams it had removed – unused – the month prior. Finally, on September 30th, some seven weeks after the prototype arrived at the suborbital launch site, SpaceX put Starship S20 through its first major test – a lengthy ‘cryoproof’.
Now, ten days after completing a seemingly flawless cryoproof test on its first try, SpaceX has once again trucked multiple Raptors – at least one sea level and one vacuum engine – from the Starbase build site to Starship S20’s suborbital test stand. From the outside looking in, it’s hard not to view the contradictory path S20 took to its first tests – and is still taking to its first static fire(s) – as an unusually visible sign of some kind of internal tug of war or major communication failure between different SpaceX groups or executives.
It’s impossible to determine anything specific beyond the apparent fact that several of the steps taken from Ship 20’s first factory departure to its first cryoproof and static fire tests could have probably been deleted entirely with no harm done and many dozens of hours of work saved. At the end of the day, Starship S20 completed cryoproof testing without issue on the first try and is now seemingly on track to begin its first static fire test campaign later this month.
At the moment, SpaceX has three possible static fire test windows scheduled from 5pm to midnight CDT on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (Oct 12-14). A similar Monday window was canceled days ago on October 7th, suggesting that more cancellations are probably on the horizon. For now, there’s a chance that Starship S20 – with anywhere from two to all six Raptor engines installed – will fire up for the first time before next weekend. It’s hard to say how exactly SpaceX will proceed. It’s not inconceivable that SpaceX will install all six engines and gradually ramp up to a full six-engine static fire over several tests.
Given that SpaceX has already static fired three Raptor Center (RC) engines on multiple Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, odds are good that Starship S20’s test campaign will be similar – beginning with a three-Raptor static fire, in other words. SpaceX could then add one, two, or all three Raptor Vacuum engines into the fray for one or more additional tests with 4-6 engines total. It’s also possible that suborbital launch mount and pad limitations will prevent more than three engines from firing at once, in which case SpaceX would presumably perform two separate tests of Ship 20’s Raptor Center and Raptor Vacuum engines.
Given that two Raptor variants have never been static fired simultaneously on the same vehicle, it’s hard to imagine that SpaceX won’t also want to perform one or several combined static fires with Raptor Vacuum and Raptor Center engines on Ship 20.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
