News
SpaceX scrubs Starhopper’s final Raptor-powered flight as Elon Musk talks “finicky” igniters
For unknown reasons, SpaceX’s Starhopper prototype suffered a hold just 0.8 seconds prior to its second planned flight test, a hold that was eventually followed by a decision to scrub the August 26th attempt and try again tomorrow, August 27th.
Starhopper is a full-scale, partial-height testbed for SpaceX’s next-generation Starship launch vehicle, serving more as a semi-mobile test stand for steel rockets and Raptor engines than an actual Starship prototype. The unusual vehicle took flight for the first time ever on July 25th, reaching an altitude of roughly 20m (65 ft) under the power of a single Raptor engine, capable of producing up to 200 tons (450,000 lbf) of thrust. That test also suffered a minor scrub on the 24th, followed by a successful flight one day later, a chapter that Starhopper may now mirror on its second attempted flight, a 150m (500 ft) hop.
Notably, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter just seconds after the rocket’s scheduled liftoff suffered a last-second hold to indicate that Raptor’s torch igniters were proving somewhat finicky relative to the chemical alternative used by SpaceX’s proven Merlin engines.
The CEO later confirmed that that comment was directly related to the 26th’s scrub, indicating that Raptor serial number 06 (SN06) needed to have its igniters inspected prior to a second hop test attempt, now scheduled to occur no earlier than 6pm EDT (22:00 UTC) on August 27th. The gist of the difficulties with Raptor’s igniter starts with the reason that SpaceX is attempting to integrate an entirely new form of ignition into the engine, replacing the methods successfully used over tens or even hundreds of thousands of seconds of firing with the company’s Merlin 1 and Merlin Vacuum engines.
Merlin 1D and MVacD both rely on a relatively simple, reliable, cheap, and easy method of chemical ignition, using a duo of pyrophoric materials known as triethylaluminum-triethylborane (TEA-TEB). When mixed, these materials immediately combust, generating an iconic green flash visible during Falcon 9 and Heavy launches, and thus producing the ‘spark’ needed to start Merlin engines.
Generally speaking, TEA-TEB is an excellent method of igniting rockets, even if it is more of a brute-force, inelegant solution than alternatives. It does, however, bring limitations: every single ignition requires a new ‘cartridge’ be expended, fundamentally limiting the number of times Merlin 1D (and Merlin Vacuum) engines can be ignited before and after liftoff.
This doesn’t even consider the fact that TEA-TEB are extremely complex chemical products that would be next to impossible to produce off of Earth, at least for the indefinite future.
To combat these downsides, SpaceX has designed Raptor with an entirely different method of ignition, known as torch ignition. Technically speaking, Raptor’s power, design, and methalox propellant combine to demand more than a relatively common solution, in which spark plugs are used to ignite an engine. Instead, Raptor uses those spark plugs to ignite its ignition sources, what CEO Elon Musk has described as full-up blow torches. Once ignited, those blow torches – likely miniature rocket engines using the same methane and oxygen fuel as Raptor – then ignite the engine’s methane and oxygen preburners before finally igniting those mixed, high-pressure gases in the combustion chamber.
In simple terms, the fact that Raptor is a full-flow staged-combustion (FFSC) engine means that the pressures it must operate under are extreme, verging on unprecedented in large-scale rocketry. Extremely high-pressure gases (on the order of 3,000-10,000+ psi or 200-700+ bar) are just as difficult to reliably ignite, especially if hypergolic solutions (i.e. TEA-TEB) are off the table.
To get an even ignition – critical to avoid burn-through, minor explosions, and even catastrophic engine failures – Raptor’s torch ignition may actually involve a 360-degree ring of spark plug-lit torches around the point of ignition, an undeniably complex solution.
However, as Musk notes, these significant, “finicky” challenges brought on by Raptor’s exotic ignition method are motivated by the potential benefits such a solution might bring. Relative to Merlin 1D’s TEA-TEB ignition, torch ignition – once optimized and matured into a reliable solution – will permit an almost unlimited number of Raptor ignitions before, during, and after flight.
Avoiding TEA-TEB and other complex chemical igniters also means that Starship will technically be able to launch to Mars or the Moon, perform injection and landing burns, maybe even hop around the surface, and still be able to return to Earth – all without resupply. Such a return voyage would still be predicated on the ability to generate the methane and oxygen propellant needed to fuel Starships, but – assuming that challenge can be solved – torch-lit Raptors would be ready for such a mission. In the event that, say, something like August 26th’s scrub happens to a Starship on Mars, the crew would also be able to get out, inspect Starship’s Raptors, and even replace faulty spark plugs if necessary.
Technically, one could bring lots of spare TEA-TEB cartridges and install those in space or after landing, but those cartridges are quite literally firebombs waiting to ignite, whereas spare spark plugs are entirely inert.
For now, we’ll have to wait for SpaceX technicians to get their eyes and hands-on Starhopper’s lone Raptor engine to verify that its ignition hardware is in good health. If all goes well, Starhopper will attempt its final flight test as early as August 27th.
Update (August 27th): Starhopper is reportedly set for a second attempted 150m (500 ft) flight test today, scheduled to occur no earlier than 5pm EDT (21:00 UTC) on August 27th. Stay tuned for SpaceX’s official Livestream!
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
