News
SpaceX Starship fires up three Raptor engines in prelude to high-altitude flight
Update: At 1:21am CDT (6:21 UTC) on October 20th, Starship SN8 ignited all three of its Raptors’ preburners, producing a spectacular fireball noticeably larger than the one produced during the rocket’s first October 19th preburner test. A mere two hours later, with no break in between, the steel rocket prototype fully ignited all three Raptor engines for the first time ever, likely producing thrust equivalent to ~90% of a nine engine Falcon 9 booster for a brief moment.
Crucially, aside from physically demonstrating Raptor’s multi-engine capabilities, Starship SN8 – already a first-of-a-kind prototype – completed and survived a static fire seemingly unscathed on its first attempt. If the data SpaceX gathers from the milestone is as good as the test appeared to be, the company could be just a few days away from installing Starship SN8’s recently-stacked nosecone, followed by a second triple-Raptor static fire test. If that second static fire goes well, SN8’s next task will be the first high-altitude Starship flight test.
Minutes after an adjacent highway was scheduled to reopen, SpaceX’s first high-altitude Starship prototype – serial number 8 – attempted what was likely the first multi-engine Raptor test ever.
At 6:01 am, October 19th, Starship SN8’s trio of Raptor engines were barely unleashed, producing a large fireball indicative of a ‘preburner’ ignition test. One of the most complex rocket engines ever developed, Raptor relies on a maximally efficient but temperamental “full-flow staged combustion” cycle (FFSC), a concise name for the many, many steps required to turn liquid propellant into thrust.
Adding additional difficulty, Raptor’s full-flow staged combustion necessitates ignition of gaseous oxygen and methane in the combustion chamber. Given that the Raptor-powered Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster exclusively use cryogenic liquid methane and oxygen, a major challenge posed by FFSC is the need to efficiently turn that ultra-cold propellant into hot gas almost instantaneously. This is where gas generators (or preburners) come in.
In a full-flow staged combustion engine, both oxidizer and fuel require their own separate turbopumps, which then require their own preburners to create the pressures needed to power those turbopumps and the gas the combustion chamber ignites to produce thrust. A step further, to enable high combustion chamber pressure like Raptor’s 300+ bar (~4400+ psi), those preburners need to produce gas at far higher pressures to account for energy losses as those gases wind their way through the engine’s plumbing.
As a result, preburners are possibly the single most stressed system in an engine like Raptor. Unsurprisingly, this has often lead SpaceX to separately test each engine’s preburners as a sort of partial static fire before the actual engine ignition test. This is the test Starship SN8 attempted in the early morning on October 19th, representing Raptor’s very first multi-engine ignition event.
Curiously, moments before preburner ignition, one of the three Raptor engines appeared to command an aggressive jet-like vent of liquid oxygen identical to a vent seen just a few hours prior during the first aborted preburner test. There’s thus a chance that only two of SN8’s three Raptor engines successfully started their preburners
Raptor is the first FFSC engine in the world to fly and – as far as the duration of lifetime testing and volume production goes – is almost certainly the most advanced of the three FFSC programs to graduate to static fire tests. In other words, given that SN8’s test campaign is the first time SpaceX has ever attempted to operate multiple adjacent Raptor engines at the same time, it’s not a huge surprise that progress towards the first three-engine static fire has been cautious and halting. Mirroring its Sunday/Monday testing, SpaceX will put Starship SN8 through another preburner and/or static fire attempt between 9pm and 6am CDT (UTC-5) on October 19/20. Even more 9-6 test windows are scheduled on October 21st and 22nd.
Meanwhile, not long after Starship SN8’s first preburner test was completed, SpaceX teams rolled a section of five steel rings inside a small windbreak and stacked the first truly functional nosecone – already outfitted with forward flaps – atop it. If Starship SN8 survives its first full triple-Raptor preburner and static fire tests, that new nosecone will likely be rolled to the launch pad for in-situ installation, topping off the rocket ahead of a spectacular 15 km (~50,000 ft) flight test.
News
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.
However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.
The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.
Back in November, Bloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.
Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit
Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.
While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.
Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models
For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.
It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.
With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.
With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.
Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.
Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.
The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.
Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.
There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.
“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing
Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.
Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.
Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion
The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.
Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.
Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value
Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.
Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.
You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:
@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper
Elon Musk
Tesla bull sees odds rising of Tesla merger after Musk confirms SpaceX-xAI deal
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
A prominent Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) bull has stated that the odds are rising that Tesla could eventually merge with SpaceX and xAI, following Elon Musk’s confirmation that the private space company has combined with his artificial intelligence startup.
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote on Tuesday that there is a growing chance Tesla could be merged in some form with SpaceX and xAI over the next 12 to 18 months.
“In our view there is a growing chance that Tesla will eventually be merged in some form into SpaceX/xAI over time. The view is this growing AI ecosystem will focus on Space and Earth together…..and Musk will look to combine forces,” Ives wrote in a post on X.
Ives’ comments followed confirmation from Elon Musk late Monday that SpaceX has merged with xAI. Musk stated that the merger creates a vertically integrated platform that combines AI, rockets, satellite internet, communications, and real-time data.
In a post on SpaceX’s official website, Elon Musk added that the combined company is aimed at enabling space-based AI compute, stating that within two to three years, space could become the lowest-cost environment for generating AI processing power. The transaction reportedly values the combined SpaceX-xAI entity at roughly $1.25 trillion.
Tesla, for its part, has already increased its exposure to xAI, announcing a $2 billion investment in the startup last week in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
While merger speculation has intensified, notable complications could emerge if SpaceX/xAI does merge with Tesla, as noted in a report from Investors Business Daily.
SpaceX holds major U.S. government contracts, including with the Department of Defense and NASA, and xAI’s Grok is being used by the U.S. Department of War. Tesla, for its part, maintains extensive operations in China through Gigafactory Shanghai and its Megapack facility.
Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works
Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level
