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

7 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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Elon Musk

Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences

Published

10 hours ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.

Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”

Advertisement

This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.

Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.

These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.

READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance

Advertisement

If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.

For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.

Advertisement

That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.

This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.

Continue Reading

News

Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage

Published

13 hours ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Credit: ABC News

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.

A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.

Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.

However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.

Advertisement

Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.

DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”

The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.

Advertisement

This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.

High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:

Advertisement

Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.

DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.

As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla enters two new markets on two different continents in one week

Published

1 day ago

on

July 17, 2026

By

Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.

These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.

Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint

In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.

EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.

Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.

Uruguay: Third South American Country

Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.

Advertisement

The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.

Advertisement

Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.

Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.

Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country

Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion

Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.

Advertisement

This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.

For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.

Continue Reading