News
SpaceX crushes rocket engine world record during Raptor test
CEO Elon Musk has revealed that SpaceX crushed a global rocketry record during a recent Raptor engine test, pushing the crucial Starship component past years-old performance targets.
On August 17th, the SpaceX CEO unexpectedly released a photo of a Raptor test and a corresponding graph showing the engine’s chamber pressure, confirming that the company had successfully pushed the engine to record-breaking levels. Musk says that an unspecified Raptor – possibly serial number 39 (SN39) – briefly reached a main combustion chamber pressure of 330 bar (~4800 psi) during a controlled burn – and remained intact after shutdown.
Outside of subscale laboratory tests, the highest main combustion chamber known to full-scale, orbital-class rocketry was achieved by the Soviet Union in the 1980s with the RD-701 engine. Although the exceptionally unique engine was canceled before it could be used, it reportedly reached pressures of 290-300 bar in one mode of operation. Now, however, SpaceX and its Raptor engine appear to be the new world record holders – and by a huge margin.
Raptor’s new crown comes roughly 18 months after Elon Musk revealed that the engine had beaten the Soviet RD-270 full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) with a higher sustained chamber pressure (~257 bar vs 255 bar). A few days later, the same Raptor went even further, cresting the Russian RD-180 engine’s 257 bar operating pressure with a peak of 268 bar. Still, SpaceX needed 6-12 more months to refine Raptor into an engine capable of operating even close to those pressures for more than ~10 seconds. In July and August 2019, Raptor engine SN6 flew twice on Starhopper, culminating in a ~60-second, 150-meter hop that ended with the engine nearly destroying itself seconds before landing.
Almost exactly one year later, Raptor SN27 launched on Starship SN5 on the same 150m trajectory and appeared to perform flawlessly. Exhibiting barely a stutter or flare, SN27 never came close to the flamethrower-like death throes Raptor SN6 suffered in August 2019. In short, SpaceX continued to do what SpaceX does best, continuously refining rough prototypes into increasingly polished end products.
Originally revealed in 2016 as a methane/oxygen full-flow staged combustion engine with an operating combustion chamber pressure of 300 bar (4350 psi), Raptor’s August 17th achievement means that SpaceX has already exceeded one of its performance goals. Of course, combustion chamber pressure is significant but still far less important than engine longevity, burn duration limits, and reusability in the context of Starship. SpaceX likely wouldn’t be pushing the envelope of chamber pressure if it wasn’t confident about Raptor’s many other important attributes, but it’s still unknown if Raptor has ever burned for longer than ~90 seconds.
Regardless, if Raptor can actually sustain chamber pressures of 330 bar without damaging itself, the milestone could mean that SpaceX has already boosted Raptor’s maximum thrust from ~200 metric tons to ~225 metric tons (440,000-500,000 lbf. For Starship and Super Heavy, that 10% increase in thrust could easily translate to a 5-10% increase in payload to orbit per launch.
To reach orbit, though, Raptor still has a ways to go. For Super Heavy to be able to complete a normal launch, SpaceX will need to dramatically expand Raptor production (~31 engines per booster) and ensure that Raptor can reliably operate for 3-5+ minutes and reignite multiple times in flight. For Starship, SpaceX needs – at the minimum – to mature Raptor until it can burn continuously for 5-10 minutes to reach orbit. The company will likely also need to finish developing a custom vacuum-optimized version of Raptor for efficient orbital Starship flights.
Given just how quiet SpaceX is about most Raptor milestones, there’s a chance the company has already made substantial progress along those lines. For example, Starship SN8 – already well on its way to completion – will likely be the first prototype to fly with three Raptor engines and will need the ability to stop and start those engines in-flight to perform full-fidelity 20 km (~12.5 mi) launch and landing tests. Even just sustaining 330 bar for 10-100+ seconds without destroying the engine is likely several Raptor iterations away. Still, given SpaceX’s track record, all of those milestones are likely just a matter of time and perseverance.
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
