News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says Starship pad abort capabilities could come sooner than later
Despite a number of technical hurdles, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk believes that the company’s next-generation Starship spacecraft could eventually be capable of pad aborts in the event of a Super Heavy booster failure before liftoff.
For a vehicle as large and heavy as Starship, this would necessitate a number of compromises, but would undoubtedly serve as a major confidence-booster for prospective passengers in lieu of an established record of reliability. If Starship were capable of pad aborts like the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, high-profile and high-value customers like NASA and other space agencies could be far more willing to place astronauts and payloads on what they perceive to be a bizarre but high-performance launch vehicle.
Although SpaceX would almost certainly prefer that Starship and Super Heavy skip the first half of Falcon 9’s life cycle (marked by two catastrophic failures), building a new launch vehicle – particularly one with all new materials, engines, and production processes – is extremely challenging, and failures are to be expected as kinks are worked out.
On the plus side, after several lessons were learned the hard way, SpaceX has demonstrated that it can build an extremely reliable launch vehicle. Since its last catastrophic failure in September 2016, SpaceX has successfully completed 49 launches of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy in barely 2.5 years, compared to 29 launches (with 2 failures) from 2010 to 2016. In short, SpaceX has simultaneously proven that it can beat almost any other single provider’s launch cadence and do so with impressive reliability, all while pushing the boundaries of reusable rocketry and constantly upgrading flight hardware.
Destroying customer payloads remains unacceptable, but the ultimate success of SpaceX’s Falcon launch vehicle family – at the cost of two operational failures – is undeniable. With Starship and Super Heavy, SpaceX thankfully has several new advantages, owing to its spectacular success over the last few years. With the fruit of major fundraising in hand, an independent F9/FH launch business humming along, and the freedom to pursue significant R&D projects on its own dime, SpaceX may be able to stomach one or several Starship/Super Heavy failures and do so during internal missions.
By accepting possible (and probable) vehicle failures during development and insulating SpaceX’s external customers from any associated risk, the company should be able to develop Starship and Super Heavy in exactly the ways it wants to.
Hence CEO Elon Musk’s indication that SpaceX “is not planning for pad abort with early Starships”. In short, adding the ability for pad aborts to Starship would/will be a major challenge. Assuming a dry mass of 100 tons (220,000 lb) and a wet mass of 1000-1200 tons (2.2M-2.7M lb), Starship’s six planned Raptor engines – capable of producing up to ~1200 tons of thrust at sea level – could be barely enough to lift a fully-fueled spacecraft. In pad abort scenarios, the rocket booster would be suffering some sort of catastrophic failure, if it wasn’t already mid-explosion. As such, getting far away from said explosion as fast as possible is the name of the game, particularly if the priority is ensuring passenger/astronaut survival.
Starting a high-performance liquid rocket engine fast enough to make an abort possible is also a major challenge, though Musk says that Raptor could be capable of extremely fast start-ups in emergency scenarios. Assuming that Raptor can somehow be ignited from standstill in less than a second (preferably 0.1-0.5s) and would still be able to ignite a second time for a soft landing, SpaceX could technically give Starship the thrust-to-weight ratio needed to quickly escape a Super Heavy failure by reducing the propellant load. With the minimal propellant needed to safely reach a stable low Earth orbit (LEO) during crewed Starship launches, SpaceX would have to lean almost exclusively on rapid orbital refueling, but the combination might be enough to ensure that Starships can abort at almost any point during launch.
It’s extremely unlikely that SpaceX will pursue this capability during the prototype phase, but it may not be out of the question for the first crewed mission(s) of finalized Starships.
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
