Connect with us

News

SpaceX sends “radically redesigned” Starship engine to Texas for hot-fire tests

As of September 2017, subscale Raptor engines had been cumulatively fired for more than 1200 seconds in just 12 months of testing. (SpaceX)

Published

8 years ago

on

SpaceX has shipped one of the first of a group of Starship engines known as Raptor, described last month by CEO Elon Musk as “radically redesigned”. A culmination of more than 24 months of prototype testing, the first flight-worthy Raptor could be ignited for the first time as early as February.

According to Musk, three of these redesigned Raptors will power the first full-scale BFR prototype, a Starship (upper stage) test article meant to conduct relatively low-altitude, low-velocity hop tests over the southern tip of Texas. Those tests could also begin next month, although a debut sometime in March or April is increasingly likely.

Effectively designed on a blank slate, Raptor began full-scale component-level tests in 2014 at NASA’s Mississippi-based Stennis Space Center, evolving from main injector development to oxygen preburner hot-fires in 2015. Soon after Raptor’s prototype preburner design was validated at Stennis, SpaceX moved testing to its privately-owned and operated facilities in McGregor, Texas, where Raptor static fire testing has remained since.

Just days before CEO Elon Musk was scheduled to reveal SpaceX’s next-generation rocket (BFR, formerly known as the Interplanetary Transport System or ITS) in September 2016, he announced in a tweet that propulsion engineers and technicians had successful hot-fired an integrated Raptor prototype – albeit subscale – for the first time ever. Just 12 months later, Musk once again took to the stage to announce an update to BFR’s design, while also revealing that prototype Raptor engines had already completed more than 1200 seconds (20 minutes) of cumulative hot-fire tests, an extremely aggressive and encouraging rate of progress for such a new engine.

Although Raptor undoubtedly borrows heavily from much of the same expertise that designed Merlin 1 and operated and improved it for years, that is roughly where the similarities between Raptor and M1D end. M1D, powered by refined kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen, uses a combustion cycle (gas-generator) that is relatively simple and reliable at the cost of engine efficiency, although SpaceX propulsion expertise still managed to give M1D the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any liquid rocket engine ever flown. Still, measured by ISP (instantaneous specific impulse), M1D’s inefficient kerolox gas-generator cycle ultimately means that the engine simply can’t compete with the performance of engines with more efficient propellants and combustion cycles.

While SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets – powered by Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum – are more than adequate in and around Earth orbit, a far more efficient engine was needed for the company to enable the sort of interplanetary colonization Musk had in mind when he created SpaceX. Raptor was the answer. Ultimately settling on liquid methane and oxygen (methalox) as the propellant and a full-flow staged-combustion (FFSC) cycle, Raptor was designed to be extraordinarily reliable and efficient in order to safely power a spacecraft (BFS/Starship) meant to ferry dozens or hundreds of people to and from Mars.

Advertisement
-

An excellent NASASpaceflight article explores the engine’s journey from a blank sheet to integrated static-fire tests and offers a deeper explanation of the technical details.

Raptor enters a new era

For all the extensive and invaluable testing SpaceX has done with a series of prototype Raptor engines, the engines tested were subscale versions with around 30% the thrust of the c. 2016 Raptor and around 40-50% of the updated c. 2017 iteration, producing almost the same amount of thrust as Merlin 1D (914 kN to Raptor’s ~1000 kN). In September 2018, Musk described Raptor as an “approximately…200-ton (~2000 kN) thrust engine” that would eventually operate with a chamber pressure as high as 300 bar (an extraordinary ~4400 psi), requiring at least one of the FFSC engine’s two preburners (used to power separate turbopumps) to operate at a truly terrifying ~810 bar (nearly 12,000 psi).

Conveniently stood beside a Merlin 1D engine also ready for hot-fire acceptance testing, the Raptor engine spotted departing SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory last week was reportedly immense in person, towering over an M1D engine. Raptor also featured a mass of spaghetti-like plumbing (complexity necessary for its advanced combustion cycle), with a significant fraction of the metallic pipes and tubes displaying mirror-like finishes. Most notable was an obvious secondary preburner/turbopump stack and the lack of any exhaust port, whereas M1D relies on a single turbopump and exhausts the gases used to power it. Raptor’s full-flow staged-combustion cycle uses separate oxygen and methane preburners to power separate turbopumps, significantly improving mass flow rate and smoothing out combustion mixing.

 

Unlike all previous hot-fired Raptors, those shipping now to McGregor, Texas are expected to be the first completed engines with a finalized design, arrived at only after a period of extensive testing and iterative improvement. They also appear to be full-scale, meaning that the test bays dedicated to Raptor will likely need to be upgraded (if they haven’t been already) to support a two- or threefold increase in maximum thrust.

SpaceX’s Starship hopper will need three finalized engines, meaning that the Raptor now in McGregor, Texas may not have been the first to arrive. Nevertheless, the shipment of full-scale hardware is always an extremely encouraging milestone for any advanced technology development program, while also foreshadowing the first imminent static-fires of the “radcally redesigned” rocket engine. With hardware now at the test site before January is out, a February test debut – one month behind a January debut teased by Elon Musk last December – is not out of the question.

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!

Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

10 hours ago

on

September 17, 2026

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Advertisement
-

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

23 hours ago

on

September 16, 2026

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

1 day ago

on

September 16, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Advertisement
-

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading