News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk lays out Starship’s path to orbit with sights set on 2020 debut
Speaking on September 28th, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk sketched out a fairly detailed picture of Starship’s path to orbit, from the first flight of the first full-scale prototype to the spacecraft’s inaugural orbital launch atop a Super Heavy booster.
Incredibly, Musk was persistent with claims that he has challenged SpaceX’s Starship teams to conduct the next-generation rocket’s first orbital launch within six months, drawing a line in the sand around April 1st, 2020 (?). How, then, does the SpaceX CEO foresee the next year or so playing out?
A whole lotta ‘Ships
As is the company’s signature, Musk confirmed that the Starship development program will continue to be highly distributed, hardware-rich, and focused on an iterative and continuous process of learning by doing. Starhopper is perhaps the best emblem of this methodology, defying almost every conceivable aerospace industry norm to successfully build and repeatedly fly what was essentially a rocket built outside by water tower welders.
Starhopper may have scarcely been meant to fly at all, serving almost entirely as a proof of concept and learning experience, but Musk strongly suggested that future Starship prototypes will replicate its highly iterative, learning-on-the-job approach to development. In short, much like SpaceX has nearly completed Starship Mk1 (and Mk2) from scratch in less than six months, SpaceX’s development strategy involves building a lot of Starship prototypes as quickly as possible.
Specifically, Elon Musk stated – in his opinion – that SpaceX will likely attempt its first orbital Starship-Super Heavy launch immediately after Starship Mk1’s first flight attempt, a suborbital launch to ~20 km (12.5 mi). Assuming that test – far more critical than any of Starhopper’s travails – is successful, the very next Starship flight could be an orbital launch attempt.
First and foremost, Musk was pretty clear that the rough schedule he laid out was a “stream of consciousness”. Indeed, the eccentric CEO contradicted (or updated) himself over the course of answering the same question, stating that “[SpaceX] would fly to orbit with [Starship] Mk3” before saying that that it would actually be “Mk4 or Mk5”. Musk is still undoubtedly set on announcing gobsmackingly ambitious schedules for his projects, but it’s worth noting just how serious he seemed while discussing Starship’s development timeline.
He noted that SpaceX will likely “have [Starship] Mk2 built within a couple of months – or less”, referring to the second prototype currently in the late stages of integration at the company’s similar Cocoa, FL facilities. Additionally, Musk indicated that Starship Mk3 – yet to begin construction in Boca Chica – could be finished as few three months from now (around the start of 2020), with Starship Mk4 – to be built in Florida – could be just one to two months behind (NET Feb/March 2020). Correcting his previous statement, whether intentional or not, Musk also added that SpaceX’s first orbital Starship launch attempt would likely involve either the Mk4 or Mk5 prototype and occur “less than six months from now”.
As a slight consolation to the eyewateringly ambitious timeline he laid out, Musk qualified his “six months to orbit” target by acknowledging that it would only be achievable “provided the rate of design and manufacturing improvement continues to be exponential”. If that remains the case, as he believes it has been over the last six or so months, then SpaceX could be ready for the first orbital Starship launch attempt as few as 6-9 months from now – sometime in the first half of 2020.
A lot will undoubtedly have to go very right for that to remain anywhere within the realm of plausibility. This includes the rapid maturation of Starship’s Raptor engine and vacuum-optimized variant, the successful completion of Starship Mk1’s 20km flight test, the assembly and static fire of the first Super Heavy booster(s), the construction of brand new orbital launch facilities, and the FAA’s approval of all aforementioned flight operations.
Needless to say, the odds are heavily stacked against Musk’s goal of reaching orbit within six months. There is undoubtedly a chance that SpaceX can pull it off, even if success would essentially involve constructing a bridge while driving off a cliff. However, the most important thing to note is that even if Elon Musk is a factor of 1.5, 2, 3, or even 4 times off and Starship reaches orbit for the first time 12 or 18 or 24 months from now, it will still have been an incredibly brisk period of development for a rocket as large, high-performance, and ambitious as Starship/Super Heavy.
It should also be made clear that, while it’s utterly beyond the present capabilities of NASA and other space agencies/companies of the 21st century, Saturn V went from paper to its first orbital launch in just five years. Depending on how one perceives Starship development, it could be said that SpaceX began development – particularly marked by Raptor engine prototype testing – as early as 2016. Suffice it to say that it’s far from impossible that Starship’s first orbital launch will happen next year, even if the challenges SpaceX faces are immense.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
