News
SpaceX wants to unleash Starhopper but longer Raptor test fires come first
According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the next round of Starhopper activity will focus on removing the spacecraft prototype’s tethers and performing far more substantial hop tests.
Longer tests demand that SpaceX begins expanding the known performance envelope of its full-scale Raptor engine. Towards that end, longer-duration tests would need to be done at the company’s McGregor, TX development facilities to reduce risk, tests that Musk confirmed are already well underway. A recent Raptor static fire reportedly lasted no less than 40 seconds, more than enough time for a single-engine Starhopper to significantly expand both the maximum altitude and velocity of future hop tests. In support of the upcoming Starhopper test campaign, significant construction work is also ongoing at SpaceX’s Boca Chica test and development facilities.
Unleashing the Hopper
During the months of March and April, SpaceX’s South Texas team effectively completed Starhopper and put the prototype through its first real tests. The process began with tank proof tests in which Starhopper’s tanks were filled with liquid nitrogen – relatively neutral and unreactive – to safely identify and repair any leaks, while also subjecting the vehicle to cryogenic temperatures. The proof testing also put the newly installed ground systems (GSE) and vehicle-pad connection hardware through their paces before moving to Starhopper’s nominal liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant.
Following at least half a dozen or so wet dress rehearsals (WDRs) that saw Starhopper loaded with LOx and methane, SpaceX technicians analyzed the health of the prototype and soon began live tests with a Raptor engine installed. Designed to produce no less than 2000 kN (450,000 lbf, 205 mT) of thrust at full throttle, Raptor offers more than twice the max thrust of the latest variant of the Merlin 1D engine that powers Falcon 9 and Heavy (941 kN or 212,000 lbf). In other words, a single Raptor should be more than enough to lift Starhopper off the ground 150+ tons of propellant aboard.
After several unsuccessful test attempts, Starhopper completed two static fires (<10s combined) and hopped – tethered – a handful of feet off the ground on April 3rd and 5th, three weeks after Raptor was first installed. Days later, the lone Raptor engine was removed from Starhopper and shipped back to SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory or McGregor, TX testing facilities for post-test analysis and inspection. In short, SpaceX used Starhopper as a sort of ad hoc test stand for the second serial Raptor (SN02) produced, completing two major acceptance tests simultaneously.
A handful of concise tweets published by Musk in the last few days of April implicitly confirmed that the next steps for Starhopper involved untethered flights off its South Texas pad, once again powered by a single Raptor engine. As both the prospective altitudes and flight times rise for future Starhopper tests, so do the risks posed to SpaceX’s adjacent facilities and the prototype itself. To minimize those risks and progress the Raptor program as a whole, SpaceX has been extensively testing the third serial Raptor (SN03) at its McGregor facilities. Instead of a rushed test regime similar to the one that almost completely destroyed Raptor SN01 less than two weeks after testing began, SN03 is participating in a more cautious and systematic series of tests.
Confirmed by Elon Musk, this included significantly increasing the length of Raptor SN03’s latest static fires, culminating in an April 27th test that lasted ~40 seconds. Above all else, long test fires are necessary to demonstrate that Raptor can reliably operate for dozens of seconds at a time, given that any failure leading to a loss of thrust could cause Starhopper – basically a controlled explosive device – to fall out of the sky. The famous Musk/SpaceX ethos of moving fast and breaking things does not preclude a pragmatic attitude towards the destruction of facilities and prototypes that could take months and millions of dollars to rebuild.
The ETA of future hop tests is unclear. For the time being, it appears that SpaceX’s South Texas facilities will be caught up in construction work for at least another week. Whether or not Raptor SN03 is next in line for installation on Starhopper, SpaceX will likely put it through several more long-duration static fires before moving ahead with untethered hop tests. All things considered, the rough Starship prototype is unlikely to restart powered testing for another two or so weeks. Stay tuned!
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
