News
SpaceX fires Falcon Heavy’s 27 booster engines ahead of “most difficult launch ever”
For the third time ever, SpaceX has successfully performed a critical static-fire test of an integrated Falcon Heavy, briefly igniting all 27 of its Merlin 1D engines to verify the health and readiness of the rocket.
Per SpaceX’s official confirmation, a “quick-look” inspection of static fire telemetry has indicated that the company’s Falcon Heavy rocket is ready for its second launch in less than three months, a milestone that could also allow both flight-proven side boosters to tie SpaceX’s own record for booster turnaround. Falcon Heavy Flight 3 is now scheduled to launch the US Air Force’s Space Test Program 2 (STP-2) mission no earlier than 11:30 pm ET (03:30 UTC), June 24th. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the mission will unequivocally be the company’s “most difficult launch ever”.
Coincidentally, on top of being Falcon Heavy’s first scheduled night launch, STP-2 has now also marked the massive rocket’s first nighttime static fire. During this critical test, Falcon Heavy briefly ignites all 27 of its three boosters’ Merlin 1Ds and throttles the engines up to full thrust, much like airliners sometimes set their brakes and throttle up before attempting to take off. The difference between Falcon Heavy and passenger aircraft is nevertheless rather significant, given that Falcon Heavy produces ~15x the thrust of an A380 – the world’s most powerful mass-produced passenger aircraft – at liftoff: 22,820 kN (5.1M lbf) to the massive jet’s meager 1,440 kN (0.3M lbf).
Despite all of that thrust, Falcon Heavy is held down during static fire by eight accurately-named hold-down clamps, themselves a part of a massive transport/erector, which is itself anchored directly to Pad 39A’s concrete foundation. In short, Falcon Heavy (and especially Falcon 9) is not going anywhere until those hold-down clamps are explicitly released. Thanks to SpaceX’s avoidance of the solid rocket boosters used by almost every other modern launch vehicle, Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets can abort at any point prior to clamp release, offering a uniquely broad abort capability.
As such, not only does SpaceX’s dedicated pre-launch static fire fully test the rocket’s health, but the same procedure is essentially repeated in the seconds before clamp release during an actual orbital launch attempt. If at any point Falcon 9’s autonomous onboard computer decides that it doesn’t like any of the thousands of channels of telemetry it’s constantly analyzing, it can command an engine shutdown and total launch abort even if all first stage engines have already ignited and reached full thrust. If routine McGregor, TX acceptance testing – also involving a full static fire – is accounted for, every single Falcon 9 booster technically completes three fully-integrated static fires before its inaugural liftoff. Falcon Heavy is slightly different, as each booster is independent test-fired in Texas but the integrated rocket can only perform static fires at Pad 39A.
After those three critical tests, flight-proven Falcon boosters are subjected to the less stringent few-second static fires SpaceX performs at the launch pad 3-7 days before a given launch. With Falcon Heavy Flight 3, the rocket’s center core, upper stage, and payload fairing are all brand new, fresh from either SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory or McGregor acceptance testing. However, both side cores – Block 5 boosters B1052 and B1053 – are flight-proven, having successfully completed their first launches and landings on April 11th, less than 70 days ago.
Set by regular old Falcon 9 boosters, SpaceX’s current record for booster turnaround time (time between two launches) is 71 days (set in June 2018), while the Block 5 upgrade’s record stands at 74 days (set in October 2018). If Falcon Heavy’s STP-2 launch holds strong on June 24th, B1052 and B1053 will simultaneously tie SpaceX’s Block 5 turnaround record. This would be accomplished despite the added pressure from the US Air Force’s decision to use STP-2 as a sort of dress rehearsal for certifying all flight-proven commercial rockets, an honor (and burden) that likely added extra work, oversight, and scrutiny to the process of refurbishing and relaunching B1052 and B1053.
“[T]he US Air Force has decided that STP-2 presents an excellent opportunity to begin the process of certifying flight-proven SpaceX rockets for military launches. The STP-2-related work is more of a preliminary effort for the USAF to actually figure out how to certify flight-proven commercial rockets, but it will still be the first time a dedicated US military mission has flown on a flight-proven launch vehicle. Down the road, the processes set in place thanks – in part – to STP-2 and Falcon Heavy may also apply to aspirational rockets like Blue Origin’s New Glenn and ULA’s “SMART” proposal for Vulcan reuse.”
— Teslarati.com, 06/16/2019
In a last-second surprise, SpaceX updated Falcon Heavy center core B1057’s planned drone ship landing site from a brief 40 km (25 mi) to more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida. SpaceX set its current record for recovery distance less than three months ago during Falcon Heavy’s commercial launch debut, in which Block 5 center core B1055 landed nearly 970 km (600 mi) offshore on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). If all goes well, B1057 – the second finished Block 5 center core – will absolutely crush its predecessor’s record, implying that the booster will likely be subjected to SpaceX’s most difficult reentry and recovery yet.
For more on what CEO Elon Musk describes as “[SpaceX’s] most difficult launch ever”, check out these previous articles on an unexpected ultra-fast booster reentry and the extraordinary challenge facing Falcon upper stage.
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
