News
SpaceX rolls Super Heavy booster to orbital launch mount
For the third time in four months, SpaceX has rolled the first potentially flightworthy Super Heavy booster towards Starbase’s orbital launch mount.
Combined with a large crane – fitted with a jig solely used to lift boosters – moving to a spot just beside the booster, it’s clear that SpaceX is preparing to reinstall Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) on the orbital launch mount. In the context of its unusual history, though, what happens next to the first more or less finished prototype of the largest rocket booster ever built is less clear.
After a shockingly quick assembly over the course of six summer weeks, Super Heavy Booster 4 rolled out of Starbase’s ‘high bay’ facility and headed to the nearby orbital launch complex, where it was installed on a custom ‘mount’ designed to support booster testing and orbital launches. It’s now clear that during that early August photo opportunity and fit test, Booster 4 was nowhere close to finished. Nor, apparently, was it anywhere close to complete one month later when it returned to the orbital pad for the second time after another few weeks of work back at the high bay.
Three months (almost 14 weeks or 100 days) after the Super Heavy prototype’s second trip to the pad, SpaceX has yet to attempt to put the booster through a single proof test. There also appears to be a significant amount of work left to finish installing external ‘aerocovers’ and a heat shield meant to enclose all 29 of its Raptor engines. In the three-year history of Starbase, there isn’t a single prototype of the roughly two-dozen SpaceX has built, tested, and even flown that’s spent even half as long as Super Heavy B4 between apparent structural completion and its first test. Perhaps the fact that Booster 4 is a first-of-its-kind pathfinder explains SpaceX’s uncharacteristic sluggishness or reluctance to actually test the rocket.
In every other instance, SpaceX’s approach to Starship development has been to move incredibly quickly, build a large number of prototypes, and rapidly test those prototypes – often resulting in catastrophic failures. Data is gathered from those failures (SN1, SN3, SN4, SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and half a dozen smaller test tanks serve as examples), changes are made, and then the new and improved prototypes that follow repeat the process until SpaceX arrives at a successful design.
Super Heavy B4’s circuitous path has been almost nothing like those of its predecessors. That could also be partly explained by the unavailability of a stand or facilities capable of truly proof testing a Super Heavy, which necessitates a supply of around 3200 tons (7M lb) of liquid nitrogen (LN2; for a cryogenic proof test with full tanks), another 3200 tons of a combination of liquid methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LOx), and the ability to ignite – and survive – as many as 29 to 33 Raptor engines. The suborbital stands SpaceX has used to proof Starships and even Super Heavy Booster 3 don’t even have half the storage capacity required to fully test a booster and the mounts and their surroundings would likely be catastrophically damaged or destroyed by the thrust and blast created by dozens of Raptors.
Still, SpaceX could have theoretically put Booster 4 through a partial cryoproof and maybe fired up as many as nine Raptors at once – not a replacement for full proof testing but still plenty to ensure Super Heavy’s structural integrity and gather invaluable data on clustered Raptor performance. Instead, of course, Super Heavy B4 has sat at Starbase’s former landing zone for more than three months while teams removed engines, reinstalled engines, half-installed a full Raptor heat shield; and installed two of six or seven ‘aerocovers’ needed to protect heat exchangers, racks of pressure vessels, and hydraulic systems installed on the booster’s aft.
This is all to say that from the outside looking in, Booster 4’s path towards testing and flight has been almost entirely different from that of any other Starship prototype. While still quick in comparison with other launch vehicle development programs, relative to other Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, the rate of B4 progress has been far slower – strongly implying that something is seriously wrong with the booster, that SpaceX no longer feels that partial testing is worth the effort, that finishing Booster 4 just hasn’t been a priority for several months, or some combination of the above.
What that ultimately means is that it’s almost impossible to predict what Super Heavy B4’s future holds beyond the clear evidence that SpaceX will soon reinstall to reinstall it on an orbital launch mount that’s much closer to completion than it was the last time B4 was installed. At this point, it’s just as likely that the booster’s third launch mount installation will just be another mechanical fit test, though the hope is that it will kick off full-scale pneumatic and cryogenic proof testing. It could even culminate in the static fire of some or all of its 29 Raptor engines, which have been installed for several months.
Energy
Tesla Megapack Megafactory in Texas advances with major property sale
Stream Realty Partners announced the sale of Buildings 9 and 10 at the Empire West industrial park, which total 1,655,523 square feet.
Tesla’s planned Megapack factory in Brookshire, Texas has taken a significant step forward, as two massive industrial buildings fully leased to the company were sold to an institutional investor.
In a press release, Stream Realty Partners announced the sale of Buildings 9 and 10 at the Empire West industrial park, which total 1,655,523 square feet. The properties are 100% leased to Tesla under a long-term agreement and were acquired by BGO on behalf of an institutional investor.
The two facilities, located at 100 Empire Boulevard in Brookshire, Texas, will serve as Tesla’s new Megafactory dedicated to manufacturing Megapack battery systems.
According to local filings previously reported, Tesla plans to invest nearly $200 million into the site. The investment includes approximately $44 million in facility upgrades such as electrical, utility, and HVAC improvements, along with roughly $150 million in manufacturing equipment.
Building 9, spanning roughly 1 million square feet, will function as the primary manufacturing floor where Megapacks are assembled. Building 10, covering approximately 600,000 square feet, will be dedicated to warehousing and logistics operations, supporting storage and distribution of completed battery systems.
Waller County Commissioners have approved a 10-year tax abatement agreement with Tesla, offering up to a 60% property-tax reduction if the company meets hiring and investment targets. Tesla has committed to employing at least 375 people by the end of 2026, increasing to 1,500 by the end of 2028, as noted in an Austin County News Online report.
The Brookshire Megafactory will complement Tesla’s Lathrop Megafactory in California and expand U.S. production capacity for the utility-scale energy storage unit. Megapacks are designed to support grid stabilization and renewable-energy integration, a segment that has become one of Tesla’s fastest-growing businesses.
News
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.
A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.
The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.
Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.
“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.
According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.
“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.
Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.
However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.
To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.
That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.
News
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems.
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report.
While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.
In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.
According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”
Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.
Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line.
Tesla Megapack Megafactory in Texas advances with major property sale
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
