News
SpaceX ships Starship’s 200th upgraded Raptor engine
A day after revealing the completion of the 200th Falcon upper stage and Merlin Vacuum engine, SpaceX has announced that it also recently finished building Starship’s 200th upgraded Raptor engine.
Starship – and Raptor, by extension – has yet to reach orbit and is likely years away from scratching the surface of the established success and reliability of the Falcon upper stage and MVac. But compared to MVac, Raptor is more complex, more efficient, more than twice as powerful, experiences far more stress, and is three times younger.
And Raptor 2 isn’t the first version of the engine. Before SpaceX shipped its first Raptor 2 prototype, it manufactured 100 Raptor 1 engines between the start of full-scale testing in February 2018 and July 2021. By late 2021 or early 2022, when Raptor 2 took over, the total number of Raptor 1 engines produced likely reached somewhere between 125 and 150 – impressive but pale in comparison to SpaceX’s Raptor 2 ambitions.
From the start, Raptor 2’s purpose was to make future Raptors easier, faster, and cheaper to manufacture. The ultimate goal is to eventually reduce the cost of Raptor 2 production to $1000 per ton of thrust, or $230,000 at Raptor 2’s current target of 230 tons (~510,000 lbf) of thrust. As of mid-2019, Musk reported that each early Raptor 1 prototype cost “more” than $2 million for what would turn out to be 185 tons of thrust (~$11,000 per ton). It’s not clear if that ever appreciably changed.
In response, SpaceX strived to make Raptor 2 simpler wherever possible, removing a large part of the maze of primary, secondary, and tertiary plumbing. In 2022, CEO Elon Musk confirmed that SpaceX had even removed a complex torch igniter system for Raptor 2’s main combustion chamber. All that simplification made Raptor 2 much easier to build in theory, and SpaceX’s production figures have more than confirmed that theory. Despite those simplifications, SpaceX was also able to boost Raptor 2’s thrust by 25% by sacrificing just 1% of Raptor 1’s efficiency.
Beginning with its first delivery in February 2018, SpaceX produced the first 100 Raptor 1 engines in about 36 months. In the first 11 to 12 months of Raptor 2 production, SpaceX has delivered 200 engines. That translates to at least six times the average throughput, but the true figure is even higher. In June 2019, Musk stated that SpaceX was “aiming [to build a Raptor] engine every 12 hours by end of year.” As is usually the case, that progress took far longer to realize. But in October 2022, a senior NASA Artemis Program official revealed that SpaceX recently achieved sustained production of one Raptor 2 engine per day for a full week.
Such a high rate – likely making Raptor one of the fastest-produced orbital-class rocket engines in history – is required because SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket needs a huge amount of engines. The Starship upper stage currently requires three sea-level-optimized Raptors and three vacuum-optimized Raptors, and SpaceX has plans to increase that to nine engines total. Starship’s Super Heavy booster is powered by 33 sea-level Raptors.
Orbital-class versions of Starship and Super Heavy have never flown, let alone demonstrated successful recovery or reuse, so SpaceX has to operate under the assumption that every orbital test flight will consume 39 Raptors. Even after the reuse of Super Heavy boosters or Starships becomes viable, taking significant strain off of Raptor demand, SpaceX wants to manufacture a fleet of hundreds or even thousands of Starships and a similarly massive number of boosters. To outfit that massive fleet, SpaceX would have to mass-produce orbital-class Raptor engines at a scale that’s never been attempted.
But it will likely be years – if not a decade or longer – before SpaceX is in a position to attempt to create that mega-fleet. If the Raptor 2 engines SpaceX is already building are modestly reliable and reusable, and it doesn’t take more than 5-10 orbital test flights to begin reusing Starships and Super Heavy boosters, a production rate of one engine per day is arguably good enough to support the next few years of realistic engine demand.
SpaceX’s first orbital Starship launch attempt could occur as early as December 2022, although Q1 2023 is more likely. SpaceX currently has permission for up to five orbital Starship launches per year out of its Starbase, Texas facilities and will likely try to take full advantage of that with several back-to-back test flights in a period of 6-12 months.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
