Connect with us

News

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

According to NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX's Starhopper successfully completed a Raptor preburner taste on July 15th. A static fire ignition test should follow on July 16th.(NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal)

Published

7 years ago

on

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.

Starhopper (technically) came alive for the third time ever on July 15th, albeit only partially. SpaceX ignited the engine’s preburners as a precursor to a full static fire, now NET July 16th. (LabPadre – YouTube livestream)

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).”

Advertisement

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.

A Raptor engine is pictured here during a static fire test in McGregor, Texas. (SpaceX)

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.

Related Topics:

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 Cybercab gets crazy change as mass production begins

Tesla has officially kicked off mass production of its groundbreaking Cybercab robotaxi at Giga Texas, and the first units rolling off the line feature a striking transformation that’s turning heads across the EV community.

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2026

By

Credit: TechOperator | X

Tesla Cybercab has evidently received a pretty crazy change from an aesthetic standpoint, as the company has made the decision to offer an additional finish on the vehicle as mass production is starting.

Tesla has officially kicked off mass production of its groundbreaking Cybercab robotaxi at Giga Texas, and the first units rolling off the line feature a striking transformation that’s turning heads across the EV community.

VIN Zero—the very first production Cybercab—showcases a vibrant champagne gold exterior with a high-gloss finish, a dramatic departure from the flat, matte-wrapped prototypes that debuted at the 2024 “We, Robot” event.

This glossy sheen is a pretty big pivot from what was initially shown by Tesla. The company has maintained a pretty flat tone in terms of anything related to custom colors or finishes.

A specialized clear coat or process delivers the deep, reflective gloss without conventional painting. The result is a premium, mirror-like shine, and it looks pretty good, and gives the compact two-seater a more luxurious and futuristic presence than the subdued matte prototypes.

Photos shared by Tesla community members reveal VIN Zero in a showroom-like setting at Giga Texas, highlighting refined panel gaps, large aero wheel covers, and the signature no-steering-wheel, no-pedals interior optimized for full autonomy.

The open frunk in some images offers a glimpse of practical storage, while the overall build quality appears more polished than that of test mules.

This glossy evolution aligns with Tesla’s broader production ramp. After the first unit in February 2026, the company has shifted to volume manufacturing, with dozens of units already spotted in outbound lots. CEO Elon Musk and the team aim for hundreds per week, paving the way for unsupervised FSD robotaxi networks that could slash ride costs to pennies per mile.

The Cybercab holds Tesla’s grand ambitions of operating a full-service ride-hailing service without any drivers in its grasp. Tesla has yet to solve autonomy, but is well on its way, and although its timelines are usually a bit off, improvements often come through the Over-the-Air updates to the Full Self-Driving suite.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla confirms Cybercab with no steering wheel enters production

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 25, 2026

By

Tesla has confirmed today that its steering wheel-less and pedal-less Cybercab, the vehicle geared toward launching the company’s autonomous ride-hailing hopes, has officially entered production at its Giga Texas production facility outside of Austin.

The Cybercab is a sleek two-door, two-passenger coupe engineered from the ground up as an electric self-driving vehicle. It features no steering wheel or pedals, relying instead on Tesla’s advanced vision-only Full Self-Driving system powered by multiple cameras and artificial intelligence.

The minimalist cabin centers on a large display screen that serves as the primary interface for passengers, creating an open, futuristic space optimized for comfort during unsupervised rides. A compact 35-kilowatt-hour battery pack delivers exceptional efficiency at 5.5 miles per kilowatt-hour, providing an estimated 200-mile range.

Additional innovations include inductive charging compatibility and a lightweight design that enhances aerodynamics and performance.

Production at Giga Texas builds on earlier prototypes and initial units completed earlier in 2026. The facility, already a hub for Model Y and Cybertruck assembly, now ramps up dedicated lines for the Cybercab.

This shift to volume manufacturing reflects Tesla’s strategy to scale affordable autonomous vehicles rapidly.

By focusing on a dedicated platform rather than adapting existing models, the company aims to keep costs low while prioritizing safety and reliability through continuous AI improvements.

The Cybercab’s debut in production carries broad implications for urban mobility. As the cornerstone of Tesla’s Robotaxi network, it promises on-demand, driverless rides that could slash transportation expenses, reduce traffic accidents caused by human error, and lower emissions through its all-electric powertrain.

Accessibility features, such as space for service animals or assistive devices, further broaden its appeal. Regulators and cities worldwide will soon evaluate its deployment, but the vehicle’s design already addresses key hurdles in scaling unsupervised autonomy.

Challenges persist, including full regulatory clearance and building charging infrastructure. Yet this production launch signals momentum. With Cybercabs poised to roll out in increasing numbers, Tesla edges closer to a future where personal ownership meets shared fleets of intelligent vehicles.

The start of Cybercab production is more than just a new vehicle entering mass manufacturing for Tesla, as it’s a signal autonomy is near. Being developed without manual controls is such a massive sign by Tesla that it trusts its progress on Full Self-Driving.

While the development of that suite continues, Tesla is making a clear cut statement that it is prepared to get its fully autonomous vehicle out in public roads as it prepares to revolutionize passenger travel once and for all.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Published

1 day ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.

Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements

There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:

“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.

This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:

Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.

It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:

I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.

It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.

New Disengagement Categories

This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.

I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.

I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.

I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.

Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.

Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.

Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns

Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.

In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.

Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.

This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.

Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.

“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.

Highway Operation

Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.

However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:

Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs

Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.

I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.

This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.

FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:

FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.

Continue Reading