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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
