News
NASA scrubs first SLS Moon rocket launch attempt
NASA has scrubbed the first attempted launch of its Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket after running into multiple issues, one of which could not be solved in time.
The delay is bad news for the tens to hundreds of thousands of tourists who traveled to Cape Canaveral, Florida to witness the launch in person. Worse, by NASA’s own implicit admission, there’s a good chance the main problem SLS encountered could have already been dealt with and rectified in advance of the launch attempt if the space agency had finished testing the rocket earlier this summer.
Ultimately, that omission turned the first SLS launch attempt into more of a continuation of the rocket’s first four wet dress rehearsal (WDR) attempts, none of which ended as expected. NASA engineers will now have to decide how to proceed and whether the SLS rocket can be made ready in time for another launch attempt on September 2nd or 5th. If not, the next opportunity could be weeks away.
As far as SLS test operations go, the August 28/29th launch attempt was fairly ordinary, with the rocket running into multiple issues – a few minor, a few significant, and one identical to a previous problem. The first problem – a hydrogen leak near the SLS rocket’s base – came after a risk of lightning delayed the start of propellant loading by more than an hour. A very similar, if not identical, hydrogen fuel leak had already occurred during official wet dress rehearsal testing in April and July.
That leak was fixed on the fly by properly chilling all related systems, and propellant loading was eventually completed – albeit a few hours late thanks to inclement weather. Shortly after, there were reports of a crack that needed careful analysis. Only later did NASA specify that the suspected crack was in the rocket’s foam insulation rather than its structures, the latter of which could have been a catastrophic problem.
Around the same time, the true showstopper of the day occurred when NASA attempted to chill the SLS Core Stage’s four RS-25 engines, all of which flew several times aboard reusable Space Shuttle orbiters. Three engines performed (mostly) as expected, flowing a bit of liquid hydrogen fuel to cool themselves down, but one – engine #3 – was never able to make progress toward the optimal temperature needed for ignition (~5°C/~41°F). After hours of remote troubleshooting attempts, no progress had been made, and NASA ultimately decided to scrub the launch attempt at T-40 minutes to liftoff.
Over the course of four separate wet dress rehearsal attempts in April and June 2022, NASA was never able to test the core stage’s engine chill capabilities. In a post-scrub press conference, Jim Free – NASA’s Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Development Division – revealed that all four engines were warmer than intended, further confirming that skipping a fully nominal wet dress rehearsal was likely a mistake. Clear and present evidence aside, Free stated that he and other executives still believed skipping that test was the right decision, claiming that ending explicit WDR testing reduced the number of times the rocket needed to be moved on its transporter.
Making the situation even harder to explain, Artemis I Mission Manager Mike Sarafin revealed in the conference Q&A that Boeing had changed the design of parts of the SLS engine chill (bleed) system after the Core Stage finally conducted a nominal static fire test at Mississippi’s Stennis Space Center. Completed in March 2021, the SLS rocket then sat inside NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for a full year before attempting its first wet dress rehearsal tests at the launch pad.
The first round of three WDRs were not as smooth as NASA expected and instead uncovered three relatively small issues: a hydrogen leak, a single faulty upper stage valve, and problems with a ground supply of nitrogen gas. Those small issues led NASA to roll SLS back to the VAB for repairs, incurring a minimum multi-week delay that stretched into two months. SLS also failed to complete a fourth WDR attempt in July 2022, but NASA decided to overlook the rocket parts and phases of preflight operations that were never actually tested as planned, one of which was the engine chill system.
If NASA cannot fix the RS-25 chill system within the next few days, it will be forced to roll the entire rocket and mobile launch platform back to the VAB to – at a minimum – replace its flight termination system (FTS). The US Eastern Range requires that all rocket FTS systems be tested no more than 15 days before launch, and NASA was able to secure special permission for a gap of up to 25 days. However, because Boeing’s Core Stage design places the FTS system in a location that is reportedly inaccessible at the pad, the entire SLS rocket will need to roll back to the VAB to have its FTS systems “retested” after that period.
As a result, NASA’s SLS launch debut will be delayed by several weeks (at best) if it can’t recycle for another attempt on September 2nd or 5th. The next window runs from September 20th to October 4th, but the SLS rocket took 10 days to go from its latest rollout to first launch attempt – a figure that doesn’t include the time required to remove the rocket from the pad, roll it back to the VAB, and conduct any necessary repairs or tests while back in the bay. If NASA can’t fix the engine problem at the pad by September 3rd or 4th, the true delay could be more like 4-6 weeks.
With any luck, that won’t happen, but it’s clear that a lot of stress and discomfort could have been avoided if NASA had gone into its first launch attempt knowing that its SLS rocket was truly ready.
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
