Connect with us

News

SpaceX ships Raptor to Texas for first Starhopper hover tests after fixing vibration bugs

SpaceX technicians work to install Raptor SN06 on Starhopper, the third time a full-scale engine has been attached to the rocket testbed. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal, 07/11/19)

Published

on

After a brisk week of no fewer than three lengthy static fire tests, SpaceX has effectively confirmed that a critical vibration-related fault was solved, delivering the company’s latest completed Raptor engine to Boca Chica, Texas earlier today.

SpaceX technicians are now in the process of installing the engine – believed to be Raptor SN06 – on Starhopper, a low-fidelity prototype meant to act as a sort of flying testbed for Starship technologies and a mobile test stand for Raptor test fires. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, if Raptor SN06 is installed, successfully checks out, and supports Starhopper’s first untethered hover test within the next 3-7 days, he will deliver an updated presentation on SpaceX’s Starhip/Super Heavy launch vehicle and (hopefully) the company’s plans for the Moon and Mars around the end of July.

This Raptor is the third to be installed on Starhopper. The first engine (SN02) was installed in March 2019 and became the first Raptor to ignite as part of a vehicle meant to eventually fly. During a duo of more or less successful test fires, Starhopper strained against its tethers, lifting a few inches off the ground. Although it did technically mark Starhopper’s inaugural hop, Raptor SN02 also suffered damage during the tests that demanded its removal.

Starhopper’s first static fire test with Raptor SN02 occurred on April 3rd, 2019.

As recently noted by observant fans after Musk revealed that SpaceX had been dealing with a “600 Hz” vibration issue, the horn-like noise during shutdown actually happens to be in the 600 Hz range, with an additional spike at 300 Hz a likely sign of an issue with acoustic and/or mechanical resonance. With SN06, SpaceX engineers and test/production technicians have managed to rapidly implement a fix for that undesirable resonance, powering through several successful static fires with durations as high as 80+ seconds, approaching the propellant storage limits of SpaceX’s McGregor test facilities.

Raptor SN04?

Shortly after its static fire tests in Boca Chica, Raptor SN02 was removed. According to a source familiar with the test process, the engine was brought up to McGregor, TX and repaired before SpaceX technicians – urged by CEO Elon Musk – effectively ran the engine until it failed catastrophically. Some two months after its removal (early June), a new Raptor engine – this time believed to be Raptor SN04, effectively an inert test article – was installed on Starhopper for a handful of days.

SN04 was exclusively used to check fitment and verify Raptor’s thrust vector control (TVC) gumball capabilities – quite successfully, by all appearances. A few days after installation, it was removed and shipped elsewhere. Subsequently, Raptor SN05 was tested in McGregor with the hopes that it would be able to support the first Starhopper hover tests, but the vibration issue described by Musk caused damage or at least killed confidence that the engine (a single point of failure on Starhopper) was reliable enough to support hover tests.

Raptor SN06 thus entered our story, arriving at McGregor around July 4th. SpaceX’s world-class team of engineers and technicians demonstrated their famous speed and agility, firing up SN06 less than 24 hours after its arrival. This initial test showed nothing out of order and was followed by no less than 3-4 30-80-second static fire tests, all of which were more or less successful. Per Musk, things were looking good as of July 8th, and Raptor’s July 11th arrival at Boca Chica is a foolproof confirmation that the engine is healthy and ready for the Raptor family’s first true flight.

Starhopper stands stoically as technicians install a new Raptor (SN06) on its thrust structure. If all goes as planned, the unorthodox vehicle could begin hover tests as early as next week (July 15th). (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

Stay tuned for coverage of SpaceX’s imminent Starhopper static fire and hover test campaign.

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

Advertisement
-

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

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.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

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.

Continue Reading