News
SpaceX’s Starhopper readies for more ambitious Raptor-powered flight tests
For the second time in two months, SpaceX technicians have begun to install a Raptor engine on Starhopper, a full-scale Starship testbed theoretically capable of low-velocity, moderate-altitude ‘hops’.
Back in late March, Raptor and Starhopper were joined for the first time, enabling a lengthy series of attempted tests that were followed by two engine ignitions and tethered hops before Raptor was removed for inspection. In the two months since that first round of integrated testing, SpaceX has significantly upgraded Starhopper and its spartan launch facilities, all focused on transforming the odd vehicle from a largely fixed test stand into a giant, mobile Grasshopper.
All the way back in 2012, SpaceX began testing Falcon 9 recovery and reusability concepts with a low-fidelity prototype known as Grasshopper – essentially a minimalist Falcon 9 first stage with ad hoc legs and a single Merlin engine. It supported a series of 8 major test flights – all successful and a source of valuable data – before the vehicle’s 2013 retirement. An upgraded Grasshopper – known instead as Falcon 9 Reusable Development Vehicle (F9R Dev1) – began testing around the same time and continued even higher altitude vertical takeoff/vertical landing (VTVL) tests until its untimely demise in August 2014.
Starhopper is quite similar, although it is also serving as a testbed for a far more varied range of technologies due to the fact that it has been developed before the inaugural launch of its namesake (Starship/Super Heavy). By the time SpaceX started Grasshopper/F9R tests, Falcon 9 had already completed several successful launches. With Starhopper, SpaceX is building and testing its first 9m-diameter ‘flight’ hardware, its first propellant tanks built out of steel, its first flight-capable rocket fueled by methane and oxygen, and its first mobile Raptor testbed, among numerous other things. The challenges are inherently much greater, but SpaceX has the luxury of taking the opposite approach it took towards Falcon 9 and building a launch vehicle entirely around its intended reusability, rather than trying to squeeze a method of reusability around an already-flying rocket.
Saurid Oddities
As noted by NASASpaceflight.com in a June 2nd article, SpaceX seems to be juggling its growing selection of newly-produced and tested Raptor engines in pursuit of Starhopper’s return to flight. According to the publication’s reliable sources,
“Up until recently, [SpaceX] was planning to utilize Raptor SN4 for [Starhopper’s first] untethered hops. However, the company has now decided to utilize this engine only for fit checks, and will instead perform the hops with SN5 – the latest Raptor to come out of SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California.” – NASASpaceflight.com, June 2nd, 2019
This indicates that the Raptor engine delivered to Boca Chica on June 1st and currently in the process of being installed on Starhopper is actually more of a stand-in* for a future Raptor, SN05. The reasons behind this Raptor shuffle elude detection, but it’s possible that the simplest explanation – also posed by NASASpaceflight – is the correct one. By shipping a Raptor that may not be ready for flight tests, SpaceX could likely save anywhere from a few days up to a few weeks by doing everything short of lifting off under the powered of Raptor SN04.
*By all appearances, SN04 is a flight-grade Raptor that has completed assembly and likely been test-fired in McGregor, Texas. Why it may currently be resigned to a “stand-in” role is unknown.
It appears that the Raptor engine is not centered, could it be that they are going straight with the 3 engine test. (Idk honestly, I wonder why this is?) @elonmusk are things about to get epic?? pic.twitter.com/sne5v7SMhy— Austin Barnard? (@austinbarnard45) June 1, 2019
Very curiously, upon Raptor SN04’s South Texas arrival, it appears that SpaceX technicians have indeed rapidly installed the engine on Starhopper, but in a position that is decidedly off-center. Pictured above, the photo could have simply caught the engine while technicians were moving it to its actual installation spot, but it could also indicate that SpaceX is speeding towards Starhopper’s first triple-Raptor test flights.
Starhopper delays?
In line with the last-second switch from Raptor SN04 to Raptor SN05 as the engine-to-be for untethered hops, SpaceX has pushed the start of that test series from approximately May 31st to June 11th. More likely than not, the ~11-day delay is meant to allow time for Raptor SN05’s McGregor, Texas acceptance testing, given that – per CEO Elon Musk – the engine wasn’t even finished as of May 22nd.
On the other hand, with Raptor SN05 now scheduled to support Starhopper hop tests as early as mid-June, it begs the question of whether SpaceX is instead working towards expedited triple-Raptor testing. For unknown reasons, neither Raptor SN03 or SN04 are apparently ready to support flight operations, although both have been thoroughly hot-fired in McGregor. Perhaps each engine is a distinct prototype with a different level of experimental readiness, or perhaps SpaceX is just testing certain engines (like SN03) more extensively than others (SN05).
Regardless, SpaceX now seems to have 3-4 intact, functional Raptor engines (excluding SN01; destroyed during stress testing), 2-3 of which are actively testing or being worked on a day’s drive north of Boca Chica. SN02 – having successfully supported a brief duo of ignition tests with Starhopper – could still be intact and test-ready. SN03 is an unknown quantity, but SN04 is clearly in excellent shape and is probably close to flight-readiness if it isn’t already. This is to say that SpaceX likely already has three Raptors on hand that are capable of supporting multi-engine Starhopper testing, whether or not such a test regime would actually be valuable.
Musk has noted that both orbit-capable Starship prototypes will be far closer to finished products and will thus fly with “at least 3 engines” (3 sea level engines, as it would turn out) or even “all 6” (3 sea level, 3 vacuum-optimized). In the meantime, Starhopper stands with an off-centered Raptor, awaiting the arrival of a different Raptor to kick off a second hop test program. If nothing else, SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy development program is operating in a spectacularly hardware-rich fashion, lending itself to the breakneck-pace of iteration and improvement SpaceX is famous for.
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
