Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s Starship rocket just breathed fire for the first time (and survived)

SpaceX has successfully fired up a Raptor engine installed on a full-scale Starship rocket for the first time ever. (NASASpaceflight - bocachicagal)

Published

on

SpaceX’s Starship rocket is a step closer to flight after the fourth full-scale prototype successfully fired up its high-performance Raptor engine for the first time and survived the ordeal.

By far the biggest technical milestone SpaceX’s Starship program has passed since its creation, the Starship serial number 4 (SN4) prototype’s May 5th static fire was just the latest in a series of rapid-fire tests completed over the last several days. The ship’s journey began back in late March when SpaceX technicians began integrating the first sections of its steel hull. Less than a month later, SpaceX officially completed Starship SN4’s tank and engine section – missing only a nosecone and header tanks – and rolled the rocket to the launch and test pad on April 23rd.

Barely two days later, Starship SN4 entered the testing phase, passing what CEO Elon Musk described as an “ambient pressure test” used to verify the structural integrity of the rocket’s propellant tanks with harmless nitrogen gas. Less than a day after that pressure test was completed, SpaceX kicked off a “cryogenic proof test” with the Starship – the same test that destroyed three full-scale prototypes in the five months prior.

Starship SN4 vents its liquid oxygen and methane tanks during its first static fire test attempt. (SPadre)

In the early morning of April 26th, Starship SN4 thus became the first full-scale prototype to pass (and survive) a cryogenic proof test, in which the ship’s normal liquid oxygen and methane was replaced with similarly frigid but non-explosive liquid nitrogen. According to Musk, SN4 was only pressurized to 4.9 bar (~70 psi), quite a distance away from the ~8.5 bar needed for safe orbital flight but reportedly more than enough to perform a small flight test.

Of course, Starship SN4 would first have to complete a bevy of additional tests – all arguably riskier than the cryogenic proof test it was the first to pass. That second, more challenging phase of testing began six days later on May 2nd.

Starship SN4 fired up its Raptor engine preburners early on May 4th. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

After some limited fueling effectively marking Starship SN4’s first partial wet dress rehearsal (WDR), SpaceX aborted the first test attempt on May 2nd. On May 3rd, Starship SN4 was successfully loaded with propellant once more and wound up performing what is known as a spin prime test with its lone Raptor engine. Over the course of a few hours, SpaceX then recycled (and rechilled) the ship’s methane propellant and successfully performed a preburner test, igniting two gas generators that spin up Raptor’s turbines and eventually mix in the combustion chamber.

Less than 24 hours later, SpaceX turned Starship SN4 around for the grand finale – an actual Raptor ignition test, also known as a static fire. Per NASASpaceflight’s unofficial livestream of the event, made possible thanks to local resident BocaChicaGal, Starship ignited its Raptor engine – a historic first for the launch vehicle program – at 8:57pm CDT on May 5th (01:57 UTC, May 6). Musk confirmed just a few hours after that the ignition test – lasting about 3 seconds – had been completed successfully.

Starship SN4 appeared to be almost fully loaded with liquid methane and oxygen before its static fire test. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Ignition! Raptor burned for about 3 seconds. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
Perhaps most importantly, Starship SN4 was still standing after the crucial static fire test. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

With that crucial milestone now behind it, Starship SN4 – perhaps pending an additional test or two – should effectively be clear to begin preparations for a 150m (500 ft) hop test later this month. Almost entirely contingent upon receiving a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launch license, that process could be finished tomorrow or take several days – or even weeks – to complete. Starship already has landing legs installed and wont need a nosecone for such a short and slow hop, but SpaceX may also need to install some kind of attitude control system (likely gas thrusters) before SN4 can safely fly.

Stay tuned for updates as we learn more about when a full-scale SpaceX Starship is scheduled to fly for the first time.

Advertisement
-

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

on

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Continue Reading