News
SpaceX’s Starship Raptor Vacuum engine plans laid out by CEO Elon Musk
Elon Musk says that SpaceX Starship engine upgrades are on track to begin static fire tests of a Raptor Vacuum variant as few as a “couple months” from now.
Designed to enable more efficient performance in thin atmosphere or vacuum, Musk admitted that the first version(s) of Raptor Vacuum (RVac) will likely be a compromise between efficiency and speed of development. Nevertheless, the faster SpaceX can prepare Raptor Vacuum for flight, the easier it will be for Starship to begin serious (sub)orbital flight tests.
As it turns out, SpaceX’s first and only official render of Raptor – published in September 2016 – showed the engine’s vacuum-optimized variant. In the years since, CEO Elon Musk has vacillated between keeping the vacuum engines as a central Starship feature and simply replacing them with regular sea level Raptors to expedite the spacecraft’s debut. The 2016 and 2017 vehicles featured a mixture of vacuum and sea-level engines, whereas Musk revealed a vehicle with sea-level engines only in 2018.
Perhaps less than a month after Musk’s September 2018 presentation, the SpaceX CEO made the decision to radically redesign the vehicle – newly christened Starship and Super Heavy – by moving from a carbon composite aerostructure to stainless steel. At first, the seven SL Raptors remained a part of the design, but Musk took to Twitter in 2019 to indicate that SpaceX had changed gears again and had reprioritized Raptor Vacuum development.
This came as a bit of surprise and it should go without saying that there’s a significant chance that Musk/SpaceX will oscillate in the opposite direction once again before Raptor Vacuum is actually ready for flight. This time, though, Musk has sketched out a development schedule and strategy that suggests SpaceX is much more serious this time.
Most notably, Musk claims that the first Raptor Vacuum prototype could be ready for static fire testing just a “couple months” from now, an immensely ambitious schedule for any large liquid rocket engine development program. Nevertheless, Musk did indicate that the “V1.0” Raptor Vacuum design would be significantly compromised and “suboptimal”, an intentional decision to prioritize the engine’s “speed of development”.
Even then, Musk believes that the first variant – featuring a shortened bell nozzle – could still be up to 12% more efficient than sea level Raptors and thus already 70-80% of the way to the physical limit of methane-oxygen rocket efficiency.
On a positive note, shrinking V1.0 Raptor Vacuum’s nozzle a bit from its nominal length will likely mean that SpaceX can static fire fully-integrated engines at its McGregor, TX test facilities, critical for speedy development. If not, the company has experience with alternatives through Merlin Vacuum, which can only be tested on the ground with its lengthy nozzle detached. This method just makes it dramatically harder to optimize a vacuum nozzle design, as full-scale, flight-like testing is nearly impossible if a given vacuum engine can’t be tested on the ground with said nozzle installed.
Vacuum engines need such large and unwieldy nozzles in order to make them as efficient as possible. In a very simplistic sense, a rocket engine nozzle directs the flow of superheated, ultrafast gases in order to squeeze as much momentum transfer as possible out of available propellant. The lower the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere is, the more those gases will expand immediately after leaving the nozzle – giant vacuum nozzles simply try to harness the additional momentum available from that extra expansion. This is why rocket exhausts appear to spread and thin out as launch vehicles reach higher and higher altitudes.
In this sense, the perfect theoretical vacuum nozzle is quite literally infinitely long. The job of vacuum rocket engineers is to find the perfect balance between that impractical theoretical perfection and the limits of real-world materials and dynamics. In theory, SpaceX’s sea-level Raptor engines have already been designed to operate in vacuum conditions, while the engine’s closed-cycle design and regeneratively (i.e. propellant) cooled nozzle should apply well to a vacuum design.
If SpaceX is lucky, there will be few roadblocks in the way of simply lengthening a SL Raptor-style nozzle and calling it a day, in which case it would be impressive but not all that surprising if SpaceX is actually able to begin RVac testing before the end of 2019. Once a rough V1.0 engine is in place, the process of optimizing efficiency can be done slowly and methodically, all while exploiting an unprecedented wealth of data from flight and orbit-tested Raptor Vacuum engines.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
