Connect with us

News

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posts uncut Raptor, drone videos of Starhopper’s flight test debut

Just a few hours after Starhopper completed its first untethered flight test, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posted two videos showing the rocket's flight debut from liftoff to landing. (SpaceX/Elon Musk/Teslarati)

Published

on

Some two hours after Starhopper’s inaugural untethered flight, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to post an uncut video showing the ungainly rocket’s launch and landing from the perspective of both a drone and Starhopper’s lone Raptor engine.

As noted by commenters, Starhopper’s first flight also marks perhaps an even more fascinating milestone: it’s technically the first launch ever of a full-flow staged-combustion (FFSC) rocket engine. Whether or not the development hell Raptor required is or was worth it to SpaceX, the company has become the first and only entity on Earth to develop and fly a FFSC engine, beating out the national space agencies of both the United States and Soviet Union, both of which built – but never flew – prototypes.

Instead of inexplicably shelving a mature prototype development and test program, SpaceX iterated through several subscale Raptor prototypes, test-fired the engines for more than 1200 seconds total, used that data to design and build full-scale Raptors, and finally sped into a hardware-rich test campaign with six (soon to be seven) new engines. After SpaceX settled on a full-flow staged-combustion cycle and methane/oxygen (methalox) propellant, Raptor conducted its first full-scale tests all the way back in 2014, performing preburner flow and ignition tests at NASA’s Stennis Space Center.

Two years and many additional subcomponent tests later, SpaceX successfully performed the inaugural static fire test of its first completed subscale Raptor, a huge milestone for any rocket engine. In the 12 months following its first static fire (September 2016), SpaceX performed dozens of static fire tests with several subscale engines, putting the new propulsion system through >1200 seconds of combined testing.

A year after that, SpaceX was still testing subscale engines but the first full-scale Raptor engine was just a few months away from completing assembly in Hawthorne and heading to McGregor to kick off full-scale static fire testing. Indeed, four months after CEO Elon Musk’s September 2018 update, Raptor serial number 01 (SN01) shipped to Texas in late January and successfully ignited for the first time on February 3rd. SpaceX’s finalized full-scale Raptor engine is designed to produce more than 2000 kN (450,000 lbf, 200 tons) of thrust at full-throttle.

Since that inaugural ignition, SpaceX’s propulsion team – perhaps to their detriment, under orders from Musk – pushed SN01 and several of its successors to their limits as quickly as possible, resulting in severe, irreparable damage in several cases. On the other hand, the no-holds-barred, ‘hardware-rich’ (i.e. destructive) test program has allowed SpaceX to relatively quickly solve several major bugs that prevented the engine from passing longer test fires.

Raptor SN05 was originally expected to support Starhopper’s first flight(s) but had to be passed up after suffering damage in one of its final June 2019 acceptance tests. Raptor SN06 became the first engine – likely thanks to tweaks afforded by data gathered from its failed brethren – to pass all of those acceptance tests, leading to its eventual installation on Starhopper in early July.

Advertisement

Raptor’s impressive development culminated on July 25th with the engine’s first untethered flight while attached to Starhopper, a 9m-diameter (30 ft) low-fidelity prototype that is more or less a mobile test stand for the next-generation SpaceX engine. Raptor is now the only FFSC engine in history that has powered a flight-capable vehicle’s launch and landing, even if said flight featured an apogee of just 20-30 meters (65-100 ft).

“In full-flow staged combustion (FFSC), even more complexity is added as all propellant that touches the engine must necessarily end up traveling through the main combustion chamber to eke every last ounce of thrust out of the finite propellant a rocket lifts off with. As such, FFSC engines can be about as efficient as the laws of physics allow any given chemical rocket engine to be, at the cost of exceptional complexity and brutally difficult development.

SpaceX delays Starhopper’s first flight a few days despite Raptor preburner test success

For more on what exactly makes full-flow staged-combustion engines uniquely capable and challenging to develop, the subject has been covered at length in past Teslarati articles.

Advertisement

According to Musk, the next major challenge facing Starhopper and (presumably) Raptor SN06 is far more ambitious 200-meter (650 ft) hop and flight test that could happen as soon as the first half of August.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year

Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.

The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.

China EV market trends

The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.

Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market. 

Advertisement

Tesla China’s strategies

To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.

Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

Published

on

Credit: Michał Gapiński/YouTube

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.

However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.

The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.

Back in NovemberBloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.

Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit

Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.

While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.

Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.

With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.

Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.

Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.

The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.

Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.

There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.

“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing

Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.

Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.

Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion

The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.

Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.

Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value

Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.

Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.

You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:

@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper

Continue Reading