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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
