News
SpaceX's new Starship test stand to make life a little easier for Raptor engine engineers
SpaceX recently debuted a new rocket engine test stand at its Central Texas development facilities and one specific aspect of the so-called ‘tripod stand’ could make life a lot easier for Starship’s Raptor engine engineers.
The success of SpaceX’s extremely ambitious Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy boosters hinges heavily on the prior success of a next-generation rocket engine the company is developing itself. Known as Raptor, the engine is likely one of the most complex ever developed, owing to its use of a combustion cycle that’s as challenging and unforgiving as it is efficient. That efficiency is the draw.
The decision to base the Starship launch system around methane and oxygen propellant – relatively dense, safe to handle, and easy to generate on Mars – means that it can never be as efficient as a rocket based on hydrogen and oxygen, the pinnacle of chemical combustion-based propulsion. For a methalox rocket as nominally reusable as Starship, going to extremes to eke even a smidge of extra efficiency out of its Raptor engines is a reasonable – if not necessary – decision. However, that pursuit of efficiency carries many hurdles with it, some of which can even be exacerbated by the equipment used to test those engines on the ground.
Raptor is less than unique in this particular case but SpaceX’s engine development and testing has matured to the point that the stands it’s relied on for static fires have become a detriment to the engine’s progress. Specifically, aside from Starhopper, all previous Raptor static fires have been performed with engines installed horizontally in test bays located at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas development facilities. While in flight, Raptor engines will theoretically never experience wear and tear similar to the unique conditions imposed by horizontal testing – engine burns will almost invariably exert forces along a vertical (up and down) axis.
To almost anyone else, even other engine development companies, this might seem like an insignificant difference. Built around the full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) cycle and meant to be unprecedentedly reusable and reliable, the Raptor engine is not quite as forgiving. Since the engine’s inaugural full-scale static fire test just one year ago, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has noted several times that Raptor could benefit from new vertical test stands.
Speaking in October 2019, Musk stated that a new vertical test stand would “hopefully allow simplification of Raptor design, as pump shaft wear & drainage is better in vertical config.” More generally, testing Raptor engines vertically would also be “more representative of flight [conditions]”, allowing SpaceX to live up to its proven “test as you fly” philosophy.
Indeed, aside from Starhopper’s two successful test flights and a handful of static fires, Raptor has performed barely any vertical testing despite more than 3200 seconds of static fires completed with 18 full-scale engine prototypes in the last 12 months alone. Including subscale engines tested from 2016 through 2018, SpaceX’s Raptor engine has likely completed some 5000 seconds (>80 minutes) of test fires over the course of three and a half years of development.
Aside from allowing SpaceX engineers to potentially simplify the Raptor engine design and test the Starship engines in conditions much closer to what they will experience in flight, the addition of a new dedicated test stand – on top of two existing horizontal bays – should allow even more testing to be done in a given time-frame. The more testing that can be done, the more engines SpaceX can quickly qualify for flight, and given that every Starship/Super Heavy pair could require up to 43 new Raptor engines, SpaceX will need all the testing capacity it can get.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
