News
NASA’s SLS Moon rocket almost aces vital prelaunch test on 7th try
Following several incomplete attempts in April, June, August, and September, NASA’s first Space Launch System (SLS) Moon rocket has almost aced a vital prelaunch test on the seventh try.
NASA says that “all objectives were met” during the ten-hour test, which wrapped up around 4:30 pm EDT (20:30 UTC) on Wednesday, September 21st. Despite the rocket running into multiple additional issues, some old and others new, the agency was confident enough in the preliminary results of the wet dress rehearsal (WDR) – deemed a “cryogenic demonstration test” – to reaffirm that it’s still working towards a third launch attempt as early as September 27th.
That launch date is not set in stone, but NASA also hasn’t ruled out the window after the latest round of SLS testing. The agency will host a press conference on Friday, September 23rd, to provide its final decision and offer more details about the seventh wet dress rehearsal.
Despite NASA’s apparent confidence after the test, which was admittedly smoother than most previous SLS tests at the launch pad, it was far from smooth. The immediate story of the “cryogenic demonstration test” dates back to the SLS Artemis I rocket’s second so-called “launch attempt” on September 3rd. During that attempt, the launch was aborted well before SLS was ready when NASA detected a major hydrogen fuel leak around one of the quick-disconnect umbilical panels that fuels and drains the rocket. Remote troubleshooting was unable to solve the problem, forcing NASA to stand down.
Over the last few weeks, teams inspected, tested, and repaired the faulty Tail Service Mast Umbilical (TSMU), preparing for a cryogenic proof test meant to verify that the issue was fixed. During that September 21st test, the TSMU still leaked significantly for the whole duration, but it did so more predictably and – unlike prior leaks – never violated the limits that would trigger a launch abort.
But near the end, a different umbilical panel developed a significant hydrogen leak that did violate those launch constraints, meaning that NASA would have likely had to stand down yet again if it had attempted to launch before completing additional testing. The test was completed successfully, but its goals and constraints were not the same as those facing a launch.
A NASA-developed rocket leaking hydrogen is unfortunately a tale as old as time. That the agency that struggled with hydrogen leaks throughout the 30-year career of the Space Shuttle appears to be just as flabbergasted by nearly identical problems on a new rocket – SLS – that has Shuttle ‘heritage’ on almost every square inch is not surprising, even if it is somewhat embarassing.
Liquid hydrogen fuel always has been and likely always will be a massive pain to manage in any rocket, but especially in a large rocket. As the smallest element in the universe, it is fundamentally leak-prone. Combined with the fact that it only remains liquid below the extraordinarily low temperature of -253°C (-423°F), generates ultra-flammable hydrogen gas as it continually attempts to warm to a more stable temperature, and naturally embrittles most metals, it’s an engineering nightmare by almost every measure.
For all that pain, hydrogen does provide rocket engineers exceptional efficiency when properly exploited, but even that positive aspect is often diminished by hydrogen’s ultra-low density. For rocket stages that have already reached orbit, hydrogen-oxygen propellant offers unbeatable efficiency. But for a rocket stage that will never be used in orbit, like the SLS core stage, hydrogen fuel is rarely worth the tradeoffs – a reality that SLS is unfortunately providing a strong reminder of.
Demonstrating the Groundhog Day-esque nature of NASA rockets and hydrogen leaks, the same leaky TSMU panel that aborted SLS’ September 3rd launch attempt (sixth WDR) and had to be fixed and retested on September 21st also caused a hydrogen leak that partially aborted the rocket’s third wet dress rehearsal attempt in April 2022. NASA then rolled the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), where workers spent almost two months inspecting and reworking the fuel TSMU and fixing other issues. During its first test (WDR #4) after rolling back to the pad in June, the same fuel TSMU leaked and NASA had to return the rocket to the VAB again to fix the problem.
The fuel TSMU then leaked on the SLS rocket’s first launch attempt (really WDR #5), but the problem was resolved and was not what caused NASA to stand down. It was, however, a primary reason behind NASA’s second aborted launch attempt (WDR #6). With any luck, the eighth time will be the charm.
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
