News
SpaceX fires up Starship and Super Heavy booster hours apart
SpaceX appears to have successfully fired up a Starship and Super Heavy booster hours apart, testing a total of three new Raptor 2 engines on the two rockets.
SpaceX says it completed a two-engine static fire with Starship 24 less than three hours after the company successfully ignited a Raptor 2 engine installed on a rocket prototype for the first time. That earlier test, performed by Super Heavy Booster 7, was also the first time SpaceX used its new Starbase orbital launch site to support a static fire test and the second-ever static fire of a Starship booster prototype. Had the company called it quits after Booster 7 survived its first intentional trial by fire, it would have still been an exceptionally successful day.
But SpaceX wasn’t done.
Instead, after Booster 7’s seemingly flawless single-Raptor static fire at 5:25 pm CDT, SpaceX loaded Starship 24 with a small amount of liquid oxygen and methane propellant and ignited two of the ship’s six engines around 8:18 pm. It was not initially clear how many engines were involved but a tweet from SpaceX later confirmed it was two. More likely than not, one of those engines was a sea level-optimized Raptor with a smaller bell nozzle and the other was a vacuum-optimized Raptor with a much larger nozzle.
Almost ten months ago, Starship 20 – SpaceX’s first potentially orbital-class Starship prototype – began static fire testing in a somewhat similar way. Its first day of static fires began with a single Raptor Vacuum engine and ended with a simultaneous RVac and sea-level Raptor test in October 2021. In some ways, SpaceX has been a bit less cautious with Starship 24, which is the second potentially orbital-class prototype to begin proof testing. Ship 24 already has all six Raptors installed, whereas Ship 20 only had four of six engines installed during its first static fire tests. SpaceX also took about three weeks to progress from Ship 20’s first static fire test to its first static fire of all six engines, whereas it appears that Ship 24 could potentially attempt its first six-engine test just a few days to a week later.
On the other hand, Ship 24’s path to its first static fire was substantially longer than Ship 20’s. Ship 20 completed its first static fire test(s) just 25 days after its first proof test, referring to the process of verifying that the prototype was in good working order before moving on to riskier testing with flammable propellant and intentional ignitions. Ship 20 also completed its first six-engine static fire 46 days after testing began. Ship 24, meanwhile, took 75 days to go from its first proof test to its first static fire – almost three times slower than Ship 20, a prototype that was essentially the first of its kind.
It’s possible that Ship 24’s upgraded Raptor 2 engines are partially or fully to blame. Instead of jumping straight into ‘hot’ Raptor testing like Ship 20, which began that particular campaign with a partial-ignition preburner test, SpaceX put Ship 24 through seven ‘spin-prime’ tests before its first static fire. For Raptor, spin-primes test the ignition step before preburner ignition, which is itself a step before main combustion chamber ignition (where the engine starts to produce meaningful thrust). Raptor startup procedures likely involve flowing high-pressure gaseous helium, nitrogen, or propellant (oxygen/methane) through the engine to spin up its turbopumps, ‘priming’ them for preburner and main combustion chamber ignition.
-
On Raptor 1, the preburners would ignite once a high enough flow rate was achieved, producing hot gas that the main combustion chamber would mix and ignite one last time to start the engine. In a recent interview with Tim Dodd (“The Everyday Astronaut”), CEO Elon Musk revealed that SpaceX was able to “remove torch igniters” from Raptor 2’s main combustion chamber (MCC). It’s unclear if that means that Raptor 2 now has zero MCC igniters, but a major change in the overall ignition process could explain why the start of Ship 24 and Booster 7 engine testing was so sluggish. So could the unintended explosion Booster 7 caused when SpaceX attempted to spin-prime all 33 of its Raptor 2 engines at once.
Regardless, SpaceX has finally crossed that particular Rubicon and, with any luck, Raptor 2 testing will begin to speed up on both Starship 24 and Super Heavy Booster 7. SpaceX has test windows scheduled on August 11th, 15th, and 16th. A warning distributed to Boca Chica, Texas residents on August 10th confirmed that the company intends to perform at least one more static fire test on the 11th.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
