News
SpaceX’s Raptor engine nears flight-readiness for BFR spaceship hop tests
In a presentation that revealed plans for a private mission to the Moon in as early as 2023, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk dedicated a couple minutes to BFR’s booster and spaceship rocket engine of choice, Raptor. Musk had nothing but praise for SpaceX’s propulsion engineers and technicians, stating that he was “really excited” about the propulsion system’s advanced design.
SpaceX has completed over 1,200 seconds of firing across 42 main Raptor engine tests. pic.twitter.com/EhxbPjd8Cj
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 29, 2017
Judging from a total of 1200 seconds of hot-fires completed just under a year ago, it’s safe to assume that Raptor has soared beyond that measure. Most recently, photos captured earlier this summer showed that a new prototype was installed on SpaceX’s horizontal Raptor test stand in McGregor, Texas, looking nearly identical to the deep black Raptor nozzle shown in Monday’s presentation. Previous Raptor prototypes seen during testing or at the test stand appeared to have a nozzle closer to SpaceX’s silver Merlin 1Ds, whereas this newest iteration’s nozzle doesn’t seem to reflect the powerful spotlights surrounding it.
Perhaps not a coincidence, SpaceX’s propulsion engineering lead Tom Mueller stated in May 2018 that flight-ready Raptors were already “in work”, with the implication being that the finalized Raptor design had been completed and that manufacturing work was beginning in earnest. Barring an unexpected shift in testing strategies, SpaceX will optimize and verify Raptor’s flight design over the course of several hundred seconds of static fire tests, eventually leading into the same practices used for Falcon 9.
-
- A September 2018 render of Starship (then BFS) shows one of the vehicle’s two hinged wings/fins/legs. (SpaceX)
-
- In 2018, Musk decided to sidestep vacuum engines entirely, moving to 7 SL Raptors. (SpaceX)
“This is a stupidly hard problem and SpaceX engineering has done a great job with this design.” In a May 2018 tweet, Musk added that “this engine is something special.” – Elon Musk, 09/17/18
Prior to being installed on any BFR prototypes, all Raptors will thus go through acceptance testing in Texas, potentially followed by a full-up static fire of the first completed BFR spaceships. Falcon 9 boosters – capable of roughly 7600 kN (1.7 million lbf) of thrust – are routinely tested in McGregor, while a full BFR spaceship with 2017-grade Raptors (1700 kN at sea level) would produce 12,000 kN (2.7 million lbf) of thrust with all Raptors firing. However, due to the sheer difficulty of transporting something 9 meters in diameter by road, it’s more likely that SpaceX will need to build up a dedicated static fire and hop test facility near the coast of Texas, at a spot called Boca Chica.
An immense liquid oxygen (LOX) tank just arrived at @SpaceX's prospective Boca Chica, TX facility, likely to be dedicated to BFR & BFS testing. @NASASpaceflight forum user "Nomadd" caught some of the first detailed photos, as well as the tank's arrival at SpaceX land on July 11. pic.twitter.com/hr7SeA6BGw
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) July 12, 2018
Getting to hop tests
As it turns out, massive propellant storage tanks (vacuum insulated) have already begun arriving at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities, currently dedicated to a duo of tracking and communications radars to be used for Crew Dragon communications. Over the course of the next 12 or so months, SpaceX is thus likely to expand and develop its Boca Chica facilities, culminating – if all goes well – sometime late next year with the first shipment of a prototype BFR spaceship from Port of Los Angeles, through the Panama Canal, to Port of Brownsville, Texas.
“I’m really excited about this engine design, I think the SpaceX propulsion team has done an amazing job – the SpaceX structures and aero team has done a phenomenal job in the design of this.”
“Even others in the aerospace industry don’t know what question to ask – once we could frame the question [with precision], the answers [for Raptor and BFR R&D] flowed.” – Elon Musk, 09/17/18
SpaceX has already completed the first composite segment (both a section of the fuselage and of a propellant tank) of the first BFR spaceship prototype, and Musk further stated that BFR’s structural engineers and technicians would begin fabricating the spaceship prototype’s propellant tank domes and engine section “soon”. A vast amount of work remains to be completed before that prototype will begin to look anything like an actual spaceship, and the exact fidelity SpaceX is hoping to achieve with it is unclear.
If the company tries to get as close as possible to a finished product (within reason, of course) before beginning propulsive hop tests in Texas, a very late-2019 debut of that test campaign could be a practical goal. It’s not a perfect comparison, but Falcon 9 is perhaps the best prior example of SpaceX’s speed of development, moving from structural fabrication and testing (albeit with Falcon 5 in mind) in 2006 and 2007 to a full-up orbital launch of the first Falcon 9 in mid-2010, with milestones like the first static fire of a booster octaweb and nine Merlin 1C engines 6-12 months prior.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
