SpaceX
SpaceX’s Starship hopper steps towards first hop with several cautious tests
SpaceX’s team of South Texas engineers and technicians have dived into a program of critical pre-hop tests of the first assembled Starship prototype, a partial-fidelity vehicle – known as (Star)Hopper – meant to soon perform low-altitude, low-velocity hop tests powered by Raptor.
Despite a lack of official information is known and SpaceX’s general silence – even to local residents – about Starhopper’s testing, some barebones insight can be derived from what has and hasn’t been done or seen over the past seven days of testing, as well as five apparent wet dress rehearsals (WDRs). To verify the operational integrity of Starhopper and iron out best practices for what is effectively a one-off mobile test stand for Raptor, these WDRs (and one more active test) have seen the unusual prototype filled with some amount of liquid oxygen and methane propellant, taken to flight (hop?) pressures, and generally monitored closely to gather valuable telemetry and judge Starhopper’s condition and hop-readiness. Aside from Hopper, these tests also serve as a shakedown for complex pad and support facilities sprung up from a dirt pile in barely three months.
Fueling the beast
Starhopper’s five (ish) wet dress rehearsal tests have demonstrated an intriguing level of caution relative to the last few months of BFR program development. Depending on how much propellant SpaceX has been filled the vehicle with and how much of that propellant they are able to recycle after each attempt, each dress rehearsal could cost upwards of six figures (USD), while also putting the unusual steel structure through multiple stress cycles.
No official info has been provided beyond a brief indication that SpaceX means to static-fire Starhopper before transitioning to tethered hops, meaning that it’s quite difficult to determine what exactly the testing plan and schedule are. In other words, these ~5 WDR tests could have been the plan all along, or each test could be producing data that has lead launch engineers to scrub Raptor ignition attempts nominally planned at the end of each rehearsal. For an entirely new and unfamiliar design like Starhopper, it seems likely that at least one or two WDRs were planned before any attempt to static fire the hopper’s lone Raptor, although it could also be the case that – much like most SpaceX static fire attempts – the WDR was simply built in as a precursor to ignition, barring off-nominal telemetry.
The third and most visibly active test yet (above) occurred on March 25th and saw Starhopper briefly vent a cloud of gas from Raptor, with some viewers guessing that a Raptor preburner (partial ignition) test had been observed. It’s unclear whether this Raptor (SN02, the second produced) completed acceptance testing in McGregor, Texas on the way from California to Boca Chica. If not, then the caution on display in these WDR tests (i.e. no visible Raptor ignitions) could also be a side-effect of
The fidelity of Starhopper relative to its orbit-facing successors is also unclear. If the prototype’s structures, avionics, and plumbing are actually more indicative of the finished product than they appear, it’s possible that SpaceX tendency towards accepting the destruction of test hardware is in a bit more of a cautious state than usual, with a total loss of vehicle amounting to a significant technical setback and schedule delay. Based on the vehicle’s appearance and the apparent decision to entirely set aside the idea of installing a new fairing on Starhopper, it seems far more plausible that the prototype is more of a glorified mobile test stand for Raptor engines and Starship avionics (software) than anything else.
If Starhopper really can’t function as something more than a marginally mobile test stand for Raptor(s), then the value of actually hopping the craft could be quite minimal, perhaps offering useful data on Raptor’s control loop and behavior during flight operations. Still, CEO Elon Musk has stated several times that SpaceX has gotten good enough at the actual task of landing rockets vertically that it’s effectively a known quantity for Raptor and BFR, whereas the exotic atmospheric operations planned for Starship are the main uncertainty for successful recoveries.
Simultaneously, SpaceX is building the first orbital-class Starship prototype just a few thousand feet away from Starhopper’s new roost, utilizing stainless steel sheets almost three times thinner than the quarter-inch-thick steel the first prototype was built out of. It’s likely that Starhopper’s career will thus end up being rather short, given that the completion of the first near-final Starship would further minimize the low-fidelity hopper’s utility. If it’s actually meant to reach orbit, the newest Starship prototype will require the tripod fins and canard wings shown in SpaceX’s latest renders in order to safely land for future test flights, while Starhopper appears to be far too heavy and simplistic to warrant the expensive and time-consuming task of outfitting it with aerodynamic control surfaces and a new nose cone capable of surviving the associated forces.
While additional testing may be done on Friday, March 29th, it appears that the next attempts for the first static fire (and hop tests) will begin next week (likely Monday) – SpaceX is unlikely to test on weekends due to the potential disruption it could cause for beach-going locals.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit
SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.
SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.
Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.
The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.
Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.
The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.
Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.
On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”
Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”
If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 30, 2026
In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.
The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.
Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.
That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.
Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”
SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success
That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.
Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.
One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.
Elon Musk
OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership
OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.
In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.
That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.
SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.
Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.
Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.
Tesla ruined other cars for me: one year Model Y ownership review
Elon Musk rips ABC News over fatal NYC Tesla crash report
