News
SpaceX rapidly shipping upgraded Raptor engines to Starbase
SpaceX appears to have opened the floodgates and begun shipping upgraded ‘Raptor V2’ engines to Starbase en masse in preparation for crucial Starship and Super Heavy testing.
The first functional Raptor engine delivery in around half a year and the first Raptor V2 delivery ever appeared to arrive at Starbase on March 30th. About a month and a half prior, SpaceX brought an early Raptor V2 prototype damaged during testing to serve as a backdrop for CEO Elon Musk’s February 10th Starship presentation, marking the first time the public was allowed to see or photograph the engine up close.
Less than three months later, Raptor V2 engines that passed proof testing without damaging or destroying themselves have begun to rapidly pile up inside one of Starbase’s three main production tents.
Though Raptor V2 has plenty in common with its Raptor V1 and V1.5 predecessors and, for the most part, looks very similar, Musk has repeatedly stated that the engine represents a major evolution from past Raptors. Most importantly, Raptor V2 was designed to significantly cut production cost and time. To achieve that, almost every major component was either fully redesigned, tweaked, or refined in some way to make Raptor simpler and more compact.
One example is the decision to slash the number of flanges (mechanical joints) in the engine’s plumbing by replacing them with welds. Making plumbing more monolithic could remove dozens of parts, seals, and potential leak points and significantly speed up manufacturing at the cost of making it harder – if not impossible – for SpaceX to inspect and replace certain pipes or pipe sections in a modular manner.
That process was repeated throughout each Raptor system, resulting in an engine that looks more streamlined than earlier variants. As a result of its more refined design and improvements to other critical components, Musk says that even though Raptor V2 now costs about half as much to build as V1.5, it’s also “much more…reliable.”
Despite significantly improving Raptor’s reliability, simplicity, and cost, SpaceX also managed to boost its maximum thrust by almost 25%. Raptor V2 engines now “routinely” operate at record-breaking main combustion chamber pressures of 300+ bar (~4400 psi) and are able to produce up to 230 tons (~510,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level. The older Raptor V1.5 engines that flew on Starships SN8-SN11 and SN15 and were installed on Super Heavy Booster 4 and Ship 20 were designed to produce around 185 tons (~410,000 lbf) at 250 bar (~3600 psi).
Following the premature retirement of Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4), which was meant to help send Starship S20 to space on the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt, that orbital launch debut is now guaranteed to use a different booster and ship powered by Raptor V2 engines. Ship 24 is a strong candidate for the mission’s Starship, while it remains to be seen if SpaceX will fully repair and attempt to proceed with Booster 7 or if Booster 8 – which is almost complete – will take point.
Either way, the pair will need at least 39 qualified Raptor V2 engines to begin integrated testing, pass several major static fire milestones, and prepare for flight. Since SpaceX appeared to kick off Raptor V2 deliveries to Starbase on March 30th, a photo shared by Musk on April 26th revealed that the company has managed to deliver at least 18 of the upgraded engines in the last four weeks. At least one more engine was also delivered on April 28th.
That means that SpaceX already has enough engines to begin static fire tests with a full cluster of 13 central Raptors on Super Heavy B7 or B8. By the time Ship 24 is fully assembled, Booster 7 is repaired, or Booster 8 is completed, there’s a good chance that SpaceX will have all the engines it needs to fully outfit a Starship and Super Heavy pair – not quite by the end of April, as Musk predicted, but not far off.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
