News
SpaceX breaks Starship test record, rolls next booster to launch pad
SpaceX has completed a record-breaking test of a Starship booster and rolled a newer Super Heavy prototype to the launch pad just hours apart.
Almost six weeks after SpaceX began Super Heavy Booster 7’s static fire test campaign, the company has broken new ground by simultaneously igniting seven Raptor engines at once. A matter of hours later, confirming SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s plans in real time, the company transported a second Super Heavy prototype (Booster 8) from the factory to the launch pad, where it joined Booster 7.
According to Musk, those rockets will soon switch places, ensuring that no time is wasted while SpaceX continues to gradually work towards Starship’s first orbital launch attempts.
Booster 7 kicked off the most important stage of its flight qualification process on August 9th and 11th with two back-to-back static fires, each igniting just one of 20 installed Raptor engines. Both appeared to be successful and SpaceX returned B7 to its Boca Chica, Texas factory, reinstalled a full set of 33 engines, and sent the Super Heavy back to the launch pad two weeks later.
On August 31st, SpaceX attempted to ignite three of Booster 7’s 33 Raptors. One engine failed to ignite but the others did not, resulting in a mostly successful two-engine test. Over the next two weeks, SpaceX performed several ignition-free ‘spin-prime’ tests, two of which appeared to spin up all 33 engines without causing an explosion. Finally, SpaceX telegraphed its next major goal with a seven-engine spin-prime test on September 16th and another (albeit with a slightly different set of engines) on September 19th.
Shortly after the second seven-engine spin-prime, SpaceX refilled Booster 7 with propellant, went back through the same procedures, and ignited the same seven engines for about five seconds. No obvious issues arose and Musk later implied that the test went well. It set a new record for the largest number of Raptors simultaneously ignited on a single prototype and likely also broke the record for most thrust produced by a vehicle tested at Starbase.
If all seven upgraded Raptor V2 engines were operating at full throttle, they could have briefly produced more than 1600 tons (~3.6M lbf) of thrust – roughly equivalent to two Falcon 9 boosters. Measuring about 69 meters (~225 ft) tall and 9 meters (~30 ft) wide, Super Heavy will be the most powerful liquid rocket booster ever tested once it ignites as few as 20 of its 33 engines at full thrust.
In an increasingly rare update, Musk revealed that SpaceX will once again return Booster 7 to Starbase’s factory for mysterious “robustness upgrades” after the latest round of testing. Musk doesn’t seem to think that those upgrades will take very long, and anticipates that Starbase’s “next big test” will be the first complete wet dress rehearsal of a fully-assembled two-stage Starship, followed by Super Heavy’s first 33-engine static fire test, “in a few weeks.”
More likely than not, each step of that process will take multiple attempts and uncover issues that will then need to be corrected and verified over the course of several months. But with Starship 24 having already completed a full six-engine static fire, there’s a small chance SpaceX will find itself with a fully-stacked Starship that is more or less ready for its first orbital launch attempt by the end of October.
In the meantime, after Booster 7 returns to the factory, Booster 8 – finally complete after a relatively slow six-month assembly – will kick off basic proof testing at SpaceX’s South Texas orbital launch site. SpaceX wasted no time preparing for that swap and transported Booster 8 to the pad just seven hours after Booster 7’s seven-engine static fire. If things move more smoothly than they did with B7, it’s possible that B8 will complete proof testing and be ready to head back to the factory for Raptor installation by the time B7’s upgrades are finished – a very efficient transition if it works out that way.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
