News
SpaceX backup Starship reaches full height after nosecone installation
SpaceX has installed another Starship’s nosecone, all but completing the second full-size prototype a matter of days before the first fully-assembled Starship’s risky launch debut.
Over the last two months, SpaceX has effectively put Starship number 8 (SN8) through an almost nonstop series of tests, completing at least four separate cryogenic proof tests, four Raptor engine static fires, and much more. The company’s South Texas team have also dodged an array of technical bugs; installed, plumbed, and wired what amounts to ~40% of Starship (the nose section) while fully exposed to the coastal elements; and even narrowly avoided a potentially catastrophic failure.
In spite of the many hurdles thrown up and delays resultant, CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that Starship SN8 is scheduled to attempt its 15-kilometer (~50,000 ft) launch debut as early as Monday, November 30th. Musk, however, does not see success as the most probable outcome.
Why, then, push to launch Starship SN8 when, in Musk’s own words, the probability of success is as low as “33%”? As previously discussed many times in the history of Teslarati’s BFR and Starship coverage, SpaceX’s attitude towards technology development is (unfortunately) relatively unique in the aerospace industry. While once a backbone of major parts of NASA’s Apollo Program moonshot, modern aerospace companies simply do not take risks, instead choosing a systems engineering methodology and waterfall-style development approach, attempting to understand and design out every single problem to ensure success on the first try.
The result: extremely predictable, conservative solutions that take huge sums of money and time to field but yield excellent reliability and all but guarantee moderate success. SpaceX, on the other hand, borrows from early US and German rocket groups and, more recently, software companies to end up with a development approach that prioritizes efficiency, speed, and extensive testing, forever pushing the envelope and thus continually improving whatever is built.
In the early stages of any program, the results of that approach can look extremely unusual and rudimentary without context (i.e. Starhopper, above), but building and testing a minimum viable product or prototype is a very intentional foundation. Particularly at the start, those minimal prototypes are extremely cheap and almost singularly focused on narrowing a vast range of design options to something more palatable. As those prototypes rapidly teach their builders what the right and wrong questions and design decisions are, more focused and refined prototypes are simultaneously built and tested.
Done well, the agile approach is often quite similar to evolution, where prototype failures inform necessary design changes and killing off dead-end strategies, designs, and assumptions before they can be built upon. In many cases, compared to cautious waterfall-style development, it will even produce results that are both better, cheaper, and faster to realize. SpaceX’s Starship program is perhaps the most visible example in history, made all the more interesting and controversial by the fact that it’s still somewhere in between its early, chaotic development phase and a clear path to a viable product.
On the build side of things, SpaceX has created a truly incredible ad hoc factory from next to nothing, succeeding to the point that the company is now arguably testing and pushing the envelope too slowly. As of November 2020, no fewer than eight full-size Starships and the first Super Heavy booster prototype are visibly under construction. Most recently, Starship SN9 was stacked to its full height, kicking off nosecone installation while still at the build site (unlike SN8). SN10’s completed tank section is likely ready to begin flap installation within the next few days, while Starship SN11 is perhaps a week or two behind that. Additionally, large tank sections of Starships SN12, SN13, SN14, SN15, and (most likely) SN16 are already completed and have all been spotted in the last few weeks.
Some ~90% of the above work was likely started after Starship SN8 first left the factory and rolled to the launch pad on September 26th. In many regards, SN8 has been the first to reach multiple major milestones, largely explaining the relatively plodding pace of its test program compared to SN4, SN5, and SN6.
Ultimately, SN9’s imminent completion – effectively a superior, more refined copy of SN8 – means that Starship SN8’s utility to SpaceX is rapidly deteriorating. The company would almost assuredly never skip an opportunity to learn, meaning that there’s no plausible future in which SN8 testing doesn’t continue, but that doesn’t mean that SpaceX can’t turn its risk tolerance to 11. In essence, accept a 67% (or higher) chance of Starship SN8’s violent destruction but learn as much as possible in the process. As long as good data is gathered, SN8’s launch debut will be a success for Starship whether the rocket lands in one or several pieces.
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
