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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
