News
Stoke Space to build SpaceX Raptor engine’s first real competitor
Seattle startup Stoke Space has revealed plans to develop an efficient rocket engine similar to the Raptors that power SpaceX’s Starship.
Formed in October 2019, Stoke Space secured its first significant round of funding – $9.1 million – less than three years ago. At that time, CEO and co-founder Andy Lapsa says that the startup had just five employees, no permanent workspace, and a “barren field” for a test site. Within 18 months, Stoke Space had turned that empty field into an impressive test facility, conducted numerous component tests, and assembled its first full-scale rocket engine – an exotic UFO-like device unlike any seen before.
It also raised another $65 million – enough funding to begin earnestly developing a potentially revolutionary rocket capable of launching more than 1.65 tons (~3600 lb) into orbit for less than half a million dollars. To realize that extremely ambitious goal, Stoke Space has taken the even more ambitious step of attempting to make the first rocket it develops fully reusable. Simultaneously, the company has incorporated several exotic technologies into that rocket, recently culminating in a surprise announcement that it will attempt to develop one of the most difficult types of engines to power that rocket’s booster stage.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
Full-flow staged combustion
At the end of an extended interview and tour with YouTuber Tim Dodd (The Everyday Astronaut), CEO Andy Lapsa revealed that Stoke Space has decided to build a full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) engine for the first stage of its reusable rocket. FFSC is the most efficient type of combustion cycle available for a chemical bipropellant rocket engine, but it’s also the most difficult to develop.
A full-flow engine attempts to squeeze every possible ounce of performance out of the propellant it consumes. The most powerful and efficient chemical rocket engines must consume huge volumes of propellant in a short amount of time without destroying the launch vehicle they’re attached to. To create pressure and spin the pumps that are needed to feed that propellant into their main combustion chamber, engines often burn a small amount of propellant in a separate gas generator or preburner. Gas-generator engines vent that exhaust overboard, reducing efficiency but making for a much simpler design. Staged-combustion engines use preburners to create gas that pumps liquid propellant, and that exhaust gas is eventually injected into the main combustion chamber.
Full-flow staged combustion sets itself apart by having two separate pumps and preburners for oxidizer and fuel. Unlike simpler variants of staged combustion, FFSC engines turn all of their propellant into gas before injecting it into the combustion chamber. That hot gas increases the heat of combustion and the pressure inside the combustion chamber, ensuring that virtually all of the propellant that flows through the engine is combusted and turned into thrust as efficiently as possible. FFSC is exceptionally difficult because of the extra-high temperatures and pressures it requires, as well as the need for an oxygen-rich preburner and pump. In a high-pressure, hot-oxygen environment, virtually anything imaginable – including most metals – will spontaneously combust.
Only complex custom-designed alloys can survive those conditions. SpaceX’s Raptor, the only FFSC engine that has ever flown, is especially difficult because it’s meant to be highly reusable. To be successful, Raptor will have to survive those conditions dozens or even hundreds of times in a row with little to no maintenance in between.
The first booster engine Stoke Space ever attempts to build will be a reusable full-flow staged combustion engine powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen – essentially a smaller version of SpaceX’s Raptor. Stoke’s booster is otherwise familiar and features deployable landing legs like SpaceX’s Falcon boosters. Lapsa says it will likely also have grid fins.
Reusing the upper stage
In some ways, the upper stage of Stoke’s first rocket is even more ambitious. Powered by hydrogen and oxygen propellant, Stoke has designed a conical capsule-like upper stage with an integral fairing. The upper stage’s propulsion is exotic and unique. A large pump will feed propellant to up to 30 combustion chambers distributed around the rim of its heat shield. The exhaust coming from those 30 chambers will expand and partially push against the upper stage’s equally exotic metallic, liquid-cooled heat shield. That expansion against the heat shield improves the efficiency of the upper stage and means that its engine will technically be an aerospike.
Stoke has already begun testing a full-scale version of the upper stage’s UFO-like rocket engine with 15 combustion chambers. Since testing began in the second half of 2022, Stoke has completed dozens of static fires. Everyday Astronaut’s tour also revealed that the startup has made significant progress fabricating and assembling its first full-scale upper stage prototype – tanks, nosecone, heat shield, engine, and all.
Reminiscent of SpaceX’s Grasshopper and Starhopper campaigns, Stoke plans to conduct hop tests with that prototype if it makes it through qualification testing. On February 7th, Stoke also revealed that it’s begun testing a crucial component of its full-flow booster engine. All told, Stoke Space is making progress at a remarkable pace and continues to tackle the hardest problems. The startup has also avoided widely publicizing any specific deadlines, instead choosing to let hardware and tangible results speak for themselves. Only time will tell if that approach pays off, but Stoke is off to an exceptionally impressive start in an industry full of impressive rocket startups.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
