News
SpaceX begins Falcon Heavy booster deliveries for first launch in two years
SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy rocket launch in almost two years has entered the final stages of preparations – flight hardware acceptance testing, delivery, and assembly.
Comprised of five major elements, the vast majority of the challenges of building and launching Falcon Heavy come from the rocket’s three first-stage boosters – each more or less equivalent to a single-core Falcon 9 booster. Falcon Heavy’s twin side boosters are by far the most visually recognizable sign of that similar-but-different nature thanks to the need for aerodynamic nosecones instead of a Falcon booster’s normal interstage (a hollow cylinder).
While easily recognizable, the center core is the most technically Falcon Heavy-specific part of SpaceX’s partially-reusable heavy-lift rocket, requiring a unique airframe relative to side cores, which are essentially Falcon 9 boosters with a few major add-ons. It’s one of those Falcon Heavy side boosters that was spotted traveling by road from SpaceX’s test facilities to a Florida launch pad on Tuesday, January 26th.
For unknown reasons, although SpaceX currently has two reused Falcon Heavy side boosters that flew a second time on the US Air Force’s own STP-2 mission, the company has manufactured all-new boosters – likely at the US military’s request – for the rocket’s fourth launch. Rebadged from AFSPC-44 to USSF-44, that mission will see SpaceX attempt its first-ever direct-to-GEO launch, nominally launching a several-ton mystery satellite directly into geostationary orbit (GEO).
The main challenge of direct-to-GEO launches is the need for a given rocket’s upper stage to coast for hours in orbit and then reignite after that multi-hour coast period. The direct launch profile also demands more delta-V (propellant) than alternative transfer orbits (GTOs) – propellant that must be launched into orbit in addition to the customer’s payload. That requires the use of extremely large and/or efficient rockets, which is why SpaceX is launching USSF-44 with Falcon Heavy instead of a much cheaper and simpler Falcon 9.
Unlike all other direct-to-GEO launches in history, however, Falcon Heavy Flight 4 will (hopefully) mark the first time a rocket launches a payload into geostationary orbit while still recovering a large portion of its first stage. After liftoff, Falcon Heavy side boosters B1064 and B1065 will attempt the first-ever dual drone ship landing at sea, while the rocket’s custom center core will be intentionally expended. According to CEO Elon Musk, that sacrificial-center-core configuration theoretically allows Falcon Heavy to achieve ~90% of its expendable performance while still recovering two otherwise reusable boosters.
As of the first USSF-44 side booster’s appearance in Louisiana, at least one other booster (most likely the mission’s second side booster) has already been spotted at SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas development facilities and may have already completed its own round of static fire acceptance testing. Given the three-month gap between the first USSF-44 side booster’s static fire and a side booster’s appearance in transport, there’s a distant possibility that the booster spotted on January 26th was the second of two side boosters to ship east, but that’s improbable given how much Falcon boosters stick out on the road.
Ultimately, assuming the second USSF-44 side booster’s static fire acceptance test went well, the only major Falcon Heavy-specific hardware SpaceX needs to ship from its Hawthorne, CA headquarters is center core B1066. An upper stage and payload fairing will also have to pass acceptance testing and head to Florida but both will likely be standard Falcon 9-issue hardware, minimizing small-batch uncertainty.
If SpaceX delivers B1066 to McGregor within the next week or two, the center core should be ready to ship to Florida by March or April, leaving SpaceX two or three months to integrate, static fire, and prepare Falcon Heavy for its fourth launch. According to the latest official information from the US military, USSF-44 is scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) “late-spring 2021,” likely implying late-May or June.
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
