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!
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.

