News
SpaceX begins installing new ‘Raptor 2’ engines on Super Heavy booster
SpaceX has begun installing new ‘Raptor 2’ engines on Super Heavy Booster 7 after the prototype completed a range of tests and returned to the company’s South Texas ‘Starbase’ rocket factory.
Earlier this month, SpaceX transported Booster 7 (B7) in the opposite direction, returning the 67-meter (~220 ft) tall rocket to Starbase’s orbital launch site (OLS) for the second time after it was forced to head back to the factory for repairs. Repairs completed, SpaceX dove headfirst into the process of verifying that the booster had been returned to full health and immediately filled its tanks to the brim with at least 3000 tons (>6.5M lb) of liquid nitrogen and oxygen – better known as a cryogenic proof test.
Less than 48 hours after completing its first post-repair test, Booster 7 sailed through another full cryoproof test without losing a beat. On May 13th, two days later, SpaceX attached a crane to Super Heavy B7 and removed it from the orbital launch mount before rolling the rocket back to Starbase’s build site on May 14th. Without official confirmation, which is increasingly rare, it was impossible to determine the results of the testing with certainty, but the speed of the process and Booster 7’s rapid launch mount removal made the two most extreme outcomes the most likely.
A quick return to the build site could have been explained by a significant vehicle failure or a major issue with SpaceX’s repair job – no point in continuing to test a vehicle that can’t be fully tested. On the exact opposite hand, a near-perfect test campaign in which all objectives were more or less achieved without major hiccups could also explain the quick return. In general, the evidence was in favor of the more optimistic explanation. Had a major issue been uncovered during the first post-repair cryoproof, it’s difficult to imagine that SpaceX would have completed the exact same test – in full less than 48 hours later.
However, SpaceX moved an in-situ Raptor engine installation stand towards Booster 7 and the orbital launch mount shortly before testing restarted, hinting – for the moment – that the company wanted to begin installing Raptor engines immediately after cryoproof testing. But mid-way through testing, the stand was moved back to its storage area and Super Heavy was instead removed from the mount and returned to the factory, adding a little uncertainty.
Concerns were immediately assuaged on May 17th when SpaceX was spotted moving Raptor engines from a production tent to the ‘megabay’ assembly building containing Booster 7. While the location of the new bay makes it difficult to peek inside from public viewpoints, preventing direct confirmation, it’s very likely SpaceX has begun installing new Raptor 2 engines on Super Heavy B7.
Additionally, confirming some of the more optimistic speculation about SpaceX’s decision to move Booster 7 back to build site, two of the three Raptor engines spotted on May 17th were also labeled “E26” and “E28.” Unless SpaceX’s engine numbering conventions have changed, the labels identify the engines as three of 20 ‘Raptor Boost’ engines that will ultimately populate the outer ring of Super Heavy B7’s aft end. More importantly, the installation of any Raptor Boost 2 (RB2) engines likely indicates that SpaceX has decided to install a full set of 33 Raptors on the booster before kicking off static fire testing.
To limit risk, SpaceX could have begun test-firing Booster 7 with just 1-3 Raptor engines installed and gradually added more as confidence grew. Instead, SpaceX appears to have accepted the added risk of losing 33 brand-new Raptor 2 engines in one fell swoop in return for the possibility of a much faster test campaign. If there are no major surprises during static fire testing, in other words, Booster 7 could be ready for flight far more quickly if the process begins with all 33 engines already installed. Installing Booster 7’s Raptors, heat shield, and aerocovers will be easier back at the build site.
Doing it all at once should also help prevent Booster 7 from suffering Booster 4’s fate and wallowing, unfinished, for months without completing a single useful test. If the gamble works, the first stage of a two-stage Starship could be ready for an orbital launch attempt in just a few months. If the gamble fails and Booster 7 is damaged, destroyed, or otherwise unable to pass the necessary tests, SpaceX will simply move on to Booster 8 sooner than later, having wasted less time on a more cautious Booster 7 test campaign.
It’s unclear how long it will take SpaceX to install all 33 Raptors, construct a heat shield around those engines, and finish buttoning up the rest of Booster 7. In an adjacent assembly bay, SpaceX appears to have nearly finished assembling a similarly upgraded Starship – Ship 24 – that’s first in line to ride Booster 7 into space. The company has also tentatively requested road closures for three 12-hour test windows on May 23rd, 24th, and 25th that either vehicle could use.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
News
Tesla’s Cybercab battery design could make robotaxis even cheaper
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with spare room for a future switch to LFP.
Tesla built the Cybercab’s battery pack with empty space inside it on purpose, and the reason points to a cheaper robotaxi down the road.
Robert Sumpf, Tesla’s director of mechanical design engineering for battery modules and packs, said the extra room beside and beneath the Cybercab’s modules was left there so the company can move to lithium iron phosphate cells later. “So, we protected this pack to go to an even lower energy dense chemistry as we scale and need to bring LFP into the platform,” Sumpf said in a Cybercab deep dive with Munro Live.
The Cybercab runs on Tesla’s own 4680 cells with a nickel chemistry today. LFP cells store less energy for their size, so a straight swap would cut range. The reserved space lets Tesla add more LFP cells to make up the difference. In return, Tesla would get cells that cost less, run cooler and survive more charge cycles. LFP became the most used EV battery chemistry in the world last year.
Not all of that room was planned for a chemistry change. Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, said part of it exists because “we didn’t need as many batteries as we thought we did.” Tesla told Sandy Munro in early 2025 that it was targeting a Cybercab pack under 50 kWh with close to 300 miles of range.
The pack also breaks from the structural design Tesla used in some Model Y and Cybertruck builds. Instead of potting hundreds of cells into one block, the Cybercab uses four separate, individually sealed modules, so a bad module can be replaced without scrapping the whole pack. Sumpf was blunt about the older approach, giving the Model Y structural battery “a grade D” because it was hard to build and nearly impossible to repair. He estimated a fully structural pack gains about 10% more cell volume, but said “the issue is the service cost.”
That cost matters more for a car that rarely sits parked. Cybercab chief engineer Eric Earley said replacing an entire pack “before half a million miles is a killer on cost,” which is why remanufacturing and serviceability were built into the design from the start.
The same Munro Live tour produced Moravy’s admission that the Cybercab line at Giga Texas is now outpacing Robotaxi deployments, along with a look at the robotaxi’s unorthodox paint process. Tesla is aiming to deliver the first Cybercabs to outside customers by the end of 2026, though Elon Musk has said the vast majority will stay owned by Tesla and run as a transport service.
Sumpf did not give a date for an LFP version, name a cell supplier or say how a chemistry change would affect range. For now, the 4680 cars keep piling up: Texas DMV records from Tuesday list 544 Cybercabs authorized for Tesla’s Robotaxi fleet, more than the 507 Model Ys on the same roster for the first time.
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world
