News
SpaceX’s first orbital Starship rocket engine is almost ready for testing
CEO Elon Musk says that SpaceX is “about a month away” from testing a rocket engine that will be essential for Starship and its Super Heavy booster to reach their full potential.
Known as Raptor Vacuum, the engine – as its name suggests – is a variant of the base Raptor engine optimized for maximum performance and efficiency in the vacuum of space. Although Starship could technically still function and likely reach orbit with only sea level-optimized Raptors installed, it would likely significantly limit the amount of payload it could carry into Earth orbit and would especially harm the ship’s performance to higher orbits and other planets.
Back in May 2019, Musk revealed that SpaceX had shifted gears again, forgoing a plan to begin orbital Starship flight operations with only sea level Raptors, gradually designing and phasing in RaptorVac engines much further down the road. Instead, SpaceX restarted (relatively) urgent work on the vacuum variant and Musk hinted that it would “aspirationally” be ready to support launches in the near term. A few weeks shy of a year later, Musk says that Raptor Vacuum testing could begin as early as June 2020.
For a variety of reasons, even if based directly off of an existing design, vacuum-optimized engines are typically much more complex than a comparable sea level variant. While efficiency is always relatively important for rocket engine design, it becomes even more paramount when dealing with vacuum rocketry, as the entire point of a dedicated vacuum-optimized engine is to eke as much efficiency as possible out of a launch vehicle’s orbital stage(s).
For example, even from a purely visual perspective, Merlin Vacuum (MVac) is substantially different when compared to the Merlin 1D engine it’s based on. Due to a number of major and largely unknown differences, the engines’ shared components are largely invisible. It’s unclear how similar they are but it’s safe to say that they share at least ~50% commonality. Obviously, the most apparent part of the difference between a vacuum-optimized engine and an atmosphere-optimized engine is the bell nozzle: MVac has a nozzle that is dramatically larger than M1D.
Raptor will be no different, with the sea-level variant featuring a nozzle about 1m (3.2 ft) in diameter, whereas RaptorVac’s bell will have a diameter closer to 2.5m (~8 ft). With SpaceX’s apparent May 2019 pivot back to working on RaptorVac now, the company has been working on a dedicated vacuum variant of the high-performance methane-oxygen engine for at least a full year. Now, perhaps beginning as early as June or July, Musk suggests that the first RaptorVac engine (SN0? SN1?) is almost ready to commence static fire testing.
The nature of that testing is a bit of a mystery. While it will almost certainly occur at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas test and development facilities, it’s unclear if Raptor Vacuum’s first static fire test campaign will be attempted with the engine’s extended nozzle installed. Back in October 2019, Musk suggested that yes, Raptor Vacuum version 1.0 would have a nozzle small enough to operate at sea level without destroying itself or its test facilities. With Merlin Vacuum engines, SpaceX performs acceptance tests in Texas but only without their nozzle extensions installed. If Musk’s October 2019 comments remain true, that may not be the case for RaptorVac.
Either way, it will be thoroughly interesting to note the differences between RaptorVac and its sea level-optimized predecessor if or when Elon Musk or SpaceX releases photos of their newest engine as it nears its first major tests. Simultaneously, SpaceX is also readying a sea-level Raptor for its inaugural static fire test while attached to a full-scale Starship prototype, while the first test with three Raptor engines installed could be attempted just a few weeks from now.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
