News
SpaceX delays Starhopper’s first flight a few days despite Raptor preburner test success
SpaceX has (partially) ignited Starhopper’s freshly-installed Raptor engine, successfully verifying that the engine is ready for its next major test: a full ignition and static firing. Although successful, SpaceX still has some work to do before the vehicle is ready for its first untethered flight(s).
July 15th’s progress is just the latest in a several day-series of preflight tests designed to reduce the likelihood that Starhopper is destroyed over the coming days and (hopefully) weeks. If all goes planned during the awkward Starship prototype’s first foray into hover tests, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated that he will provide an official presentation updating the public on the status of the company’s ever-changing next-generation rocket.
The past week or so of Starhopper preflight testing began with Raptor serial number 6 (SN06) completing the last of a series of acceptance test fires in McGregor, Texas on June 10th. Even on its own, this was a major milestone for the new SpaceX engine: Raptor SN06 was the first of the new, full-scale engines to pass the acceptance test program with flying colors. According to Musk, for the engine to complete those tests so successfully, SpaceX had to solve a challenging bug in which some sort of mechanical resonance (i.e. vibration) damaged or destroyed Raptors SN01-05.
Hours later, the engine began a short ~450 mi (720 km) journey south to Starhopper, located in Boca Chica, Texas. The engine arrived on July 11th and was fully installed on Starhopper by the following evening (July 12th), at which point SpaceX put Starhopper and Raptor through some mild but valuable thrust vector controller (TVC) tests, wiggling the car-sized engine to ensure it can accurately steer the prototype rocket.
Around two days after the above ‘wiggle’ test was successfully completed, SpaceX moved into the next stage, partially fueling Starhopper with liquid methane and oxygen propellant and helium pressurant in what is known in rocketry as a wet dress rehearsal (WDR). The (implicitly) successful WDR was capped off with a duo of what can now safely be concluded were some sort of Raptor test preceding even pre-ignition operations. Whatever the tests were, they appear to have been completed successfully.
That appears to be the case because less than 24 hours after their completion, on July 15th, SpaceX once again began loading Starhopper with propellant and pressurant for a second round of wet testing. This time around, SpaceX got right into more critical Raptor tests once enough propellant was loaded, igniting the engine’s interwoven oxygen and methane preburners.
Previously discussed 24 hours ago in a Teslarati article focused on Raptor wiggles and other miscellaneous tests, Raptor is an extremely advanced rocket engine based on a cycle (i.e. how propellant is turned into thrust) known as full-flow staged combustion.
“In a staged-combustion engine like Raptor, getting from the supercool liquid oxygen and methane propellant to 200+ tons of thrust is quite literally staged, meaning that the ignition doesn’t happen all at once. Rather, the preburners – essentially their own, unique combustion chambers – ignite an oxygen- or methane-rich mixture, the burning of which produces the gas and pressure that powers the turbines that bring fuel into the main combustion chamber. That fuel then ignites, producing thrust as they exit the engine’s bell-shaped nozzle.
Unintuitively, conditions inside the preburner – hidden away from view – are actually far more intense than the iconic blue, purple, and pink flame that visibly exists Raptor’s nozzle. Much like hot water will cool while traveling through pipes, the superheated gaseous propellant that Raptor ignites to produce thrust will also cool (and thus lose pressure) as it travels from Raptor’s preburner to its main combustion chamber. If the pressure produced in the preburners is too low, Raptor’s thrust will be (roughly speaking) proportionally limited at best. At worst, low pressure in the preburners can trigger a “hard start” or shutdown that could destroy the engine. According to Elon Musk, Raptor’s oxygen preburner thus has the worst of it, operating at pressures as high or higher than 800 bar (11,600 psi, 80 megapascals).”
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.
Additionally, FFSC physically requires two separate preburners and then makes things even harder by making each separate preburner (methane and oxygen) depend on each other’s operation for the engine to fully ignite. This means that no individual preburner can be used to kickstart Raptor – instead, SpaceX must somehow spin the turbopumps that feed propellant into each preburner with some separate system. This is all just to emphasize the fact that Raptor’s ignition sequence is a spectacularly complex orchestra of valves, spark plugs, sensors, and magic. This is why it’s valuable for Raptor to test its preburner system independently of an actual ignition test, at least as long as the engine is still in the development stages.
According to NASASpaceflight.com managing editor Chris Bergin, what this practically translates to is a minor Starhopper hover test delay of 1-2 days, while the static fire has also been pushed roughly 24 hours from July 15th to July 16th. If that full static fire produces lots of happy data, Starhopper could be cleared for a hover test debut attempt as early as Wednesday or Thursday (July 17/18).
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
