News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains Starship’s ‘transpiring’ steel heat shield in Q&A
Speaking in a late-December 2018 interview with Popular Mechanics’ editor-in-chief, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk shared considerable insight into the thought processes that ultimately led him to – in his own words – “convince” his team that the company’s BFR rocket (now Starship and Super Heavy) should pivot from an advanced composite structure to a relatively common form of stainless steel.
Aside from steel’s relative ease of manipulation and affordability, Musk delved into the technical solution he arrived at for an advanced, ultra-reusable heat shield for Starship – build it out of steel and use water (or liquid methane) to wick reentry heat away.
When going to ~1750 Kelvin, specific heat is more important than latent heat of vaporization, which is why cryogenic fuel is a slightly better choice than water
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 22, 2019
Although there has been some successful experimental research done on “transpirational” heat shields (relying on the heat capacity of vaporizing liquids or gases to soak up thermal energy during orbital rocket reentries), Musk is by no means wrong when he says that a stainless steel sandwich-hulled spaceship regeneratively cooled by microscopic holes and liquid water or propellant “has never been proposed before”. While the basic concept probably arose somewhere over the last 50-100 years, it does not appear that any serious theoretical or experimental research has been conducted to explore transpiration-cooled metallic heat shields, where metallic thermal protection systems (TPS) are already fairly exotic and unproven in the realm of modern aerospace.
“Very easy to work with steel. Oh, and I forgot to mention: [SpaceX’s high-quality] carbon fiber is $135 a kilogram, 35 percent scrap, so you’re starting to approach almost $200 a kilogram. [301] steel is $3 a kilogram.” – Elon Musk
While Musk’s solution could dramatically simplify what is needed for Starship’s high-performance heat shield, a stainless steel sandwich on half of Starship offers another huge benefit: the spacecraft can still gain many of the mass ratio benefits of stainless steel balloon tanks (metal tanks so thin that they collapse without positive pressure) while retaining structural rigidity even when depressurized. At the end of the day, Musk very well might be correct when he states that a stainless steel Starship can ultimately be more mass-efficient (“lighter”) than a Starship built out of advanced carbon composites, a characteristic he rightly describes as “counterintuitive”.
-
- Starhopper and SpaceX’s spartan assembly facilities are pictured here, showing the inside of the aft section and a completed tank dome. (Austin Barnard)
-
- Starship has been shown with actuating fins and canard wings since SpaceX’s September 2018 update. (SpaceX)
What does Science™ have to say?
Based on research done in the 2010s by German space agency (DLR), a porous thermal protection material called Procelit 170 (P170) – 91% aluminum oxide and 9% silicon oxide – was cooled from a peak heat of ~1750 C (3200 F) to ~25 C (75 F) during wind tunnel testing, demonstrating that an average of 0.065 kg (~2.3 oz) of water per second would be needed to cool a square meter of P170 to the same degree, assuming a heating rate of around 200 kW/m^2. Given that 300-series stainless steels have a comparatively huge capacity for radiating heat at high temperatures, will be dramatically thinner than Procelit in any given Starship use-case, and will not need to be cooled all the way to 25C/75F during hot operations, the DLR-derived number is barely relevant without another round of wind tunnel tests focused on metallic thermal protection systems. Still, it allows for the creation of a sort of worst-case scenario for BFS/Starship’s water-cooled shield.
Assuming that the windward side of Starship’s regeneratively cooled heat shield has roughly the same surface area as half of a cylinder, 800 m^2 (8600 ft^2) will have to be actively cooled with water, translating to a water consumption rate of approximately 52 kg/s (115 lb/s) if the entire surface is being subjected to temperatures around ~1750 C. That is, of course, a grossly inaccurate generalization, as aerodynamic surfaces dramatically shape, dissipate, and concentrate airflows (and thus heat from friction) in complex and highly specific ways. Much like NASA’s Space Shuttle or DLR’s theoretical SpaceLiner, the reality of reentry heating is that that heat typically ends up being focused at leading edges and control surfaces, which thus require uniquely capable versions of thermal protection (TPS). Shuttle used fragile reinforced carbon-carbon tiles at those hotspots, while DLR was exploring water cooling as a viable and safer alternative for SpaceLiner.
-
- Starship’s first full-scale prototype is being rapidly assembled in South Texas. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
-
- Starship’s first full-scale prototype is being rapidly assembled in South Texas. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)
-
- Meanwhile, giant 9m-diameter tank domes are being assembled and welded together a few hundred feet away from Starhopper. (NSF – bocachicagal)
-
- SpaceX’s Starhopper seen in a January render and a January photo. (SpaceX/Elon Musk)
-
- BFS seen standing vertically on the pads of its tripod fins. (SpaceX)
-
- A NASA team—via a US Navy aircraft—captured high-resolution, calibrated infrared imagery of Space Shuttle Discovery’s lower surface in addition to discrete instrumentation on the wing, downstream, and on the Boundary Layer Transition Flight Experiment protuberance. In the image, the red regions represent higher surface temperatures. (NASA)
Aside from heat flux, it’s also unclear when or how long the cooling system will need to be supplied with water during potential Starship reentries. At worst, the spacecraft would need to supply a constant 50+ kg/s throughout a 5+ minute (600+ second) regime of high-velocity, high-drag reentry conditions. Assuming that Starship will need to rely heavily on aerobraking to maintain efficient interplanetary operations, it might have to perform 2+ active-cooling cycles per reentry, potentially requiring a minimum of 15 tons of water per reentry. Given that SpaceX intends (at least as of September 2018) for Starship to be able to land more than 100 tons on the surface of Mars, 15t of water would cut drastically into payload margins and is thus likely an unfeasibly large mass reserve or any given interplanetary mission.
“You just need, essentially, [a stainless-steel sandwich]. You flow either fuel or water in between the sandwich layer, and then you have [very tiny] perforations on the outside and you essentially bleed water [or fuel] through them … to cool the windward side of the rocket.” – SpaceX CEO Elon Musk (Popular Mechanics, December 2018)
The assumptions needed for the above calculations do mean that 30T is an absolute worst-case scenario for a regeneratively-cooled Starship reentry, given that SpaceX may only have to vigorously cool a small fraction of its windward surface and will likely be able to cut more than half of the water needed by allowing Starship’s steel skin to heat quite a lot while still staying well below its melting point (likely around 800C/1500F or higher). This also fails to account for the fact that a regeneratively-cooled stainless steel heat shield would effectively let SpaceX do away with what would otherwise be a massive and heavy ablative heat shield and mounting mechanism. Perhaps the benefits of stainless steel might ultimately mean that carrying around 10-30T of coolant is actually performance-neutral or a minimal burden when all costs and benefits are properly accounted for.
Probability at 60% & rising rapidly due to new architecture
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 27, 2018
Musk clearly believes with almost zero doubt that a stainless steel Starship and booster (Super Heavy) is the way forward for the company’s BFR program, and he has now twice indicated that the switch away from advanced carbon composites will actually “accelerate” the rocket’s development schedule. For now, all we can do is watch as the first Starship prototype – meant to perform short hop tests ASAP – gradually comes into being in South Texas.
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
