News
SpaceX rolls Super Heavy booster to orbital launch mount
For the third time in four months, SpaceX has rolled the first potentially flightworthy Super Heavy booster towards Starbase’s orbital launch mount.
Combined with a large crane – fitted with a jig solely used to lift boosters – moving to a spot just beside the booster, it’s clear that SpaceX is preparing to reinstall Super Heavy Booster 4 (B4) on the orbital launch mount. In the context of its unusual history, though, what happens next to the first more or less finished prototype of the largest rocket booster ever built is less clear.
After a shockingly quick assembly over the course of six summer weeks, Super Heavy Booster 4 rolled out of Starbase’s ‘high bay’ facility and headed to the nearby orbital launch complex, where it was installed on a custom ‘mount’ designed to support booster testing and orbital launches. It’s now clear that during that early August photo opportunity and fit test, Booster 4 was nowhere close to finished. Nor, apparently, was it anywhere close to complete one month later when it returned to the orbital pad for the second time after another few weeks of work back at the high bay.
Three months (almost 14 weeks or 100 days) after the Super Heavy prototype’s second trip to the pad, SpaceX has yet to attempt to put the booster through a single proof test. There also appears to be a significant amount of work left to finish installing external ‘aerocovers’ and a heat shield meant to enclose all 29 of its Raptor engines. In the three-year history of Starbase, there isn’t a single prototype of the roughly two-dozen SpaceX has built, tested, and even flown that’s spent even half as long as Super Heavy B4 between apparent structural completion and its first test. Perhaps the fact that Booster 4 is a first-of-its-kind pathfinder explains SpaceX’s uncharacteristic sluggishness or reluctance to actually test the rocket.
In every other instance, SpaceX’s approach to Starship development has been to move incredibly quickly, build a large number of prototypes, and rapidly test those prototypes – often resulting in catastrophic failures. Data is gathered from those failures (SN1, SN3, SN4, SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and half a dozen smaller test tanks serve as examples), changes are made, and then the new and improved prototypes that follow repeat the process until SpaceX arrives at a successful design.
Super Heavy B4’s circuitous path has been almost nothing like those of its predecessors. That could also be partly explained by the unavailability of a stand or facilities capable of truly proof testing a Super Heavy, which necessitates a supply of around 3200 tons (7M lb) of liquid nitrogen (LN2; for a cryogenic proof test with full tanks), another 3200 tons of a combination of liquid methane (LCH4) and oxygen (LOx), and the ability to ignite – and survive – as many as 29 to 33 Raptor engines. The suborbital stands SpaceX has used to proof Starships and even Super Heavy Booster 3 don’t even have half the storage capacity required to fully test a booster and the mounts and their surroundings would likely be catastrophically damaged or destroyed by the thrust and blast created by dozens of Raptors.
Still, SpaceX could have theoretically put Booster 4 through a partial cryoproof and maybe fired up as many as nine Raptors at once – not a replacement for full proof testing but still plenty to ensure Super Heavy’s structural integrity and gather invaluable data on clustered Raptor performance. Instead, of course, Super Heavy B4 has sat at Starbase’s former landing zone for more than three months while teams removed engines, reinstalled engines, half-installed a full Raptor heat shield; and installed two of six or seven ‘aerocovers’ needed to protect heat exchangers, racks of pressure vessels, and hydraulic systems installed on the booster’s aft.
This is all to say that from the outside looking in, Booster 4’s path towards testing and flight has been almost entirely different from that of any other Starship prototype. While still quick in comparison with other launch vehicle development programs, relative to other Starship and Super Heavy prototypes, the rate of B4 progress has been far slower – strongly implying that something is seriously wrong with the booster, that SpaceX no longer feels that partial testing is worth the effort, that finishing Booster 4 just hasn’t been a priority for several months, or some combination of the above.
What that ultimately means is that it’s almost impossible to predict what Super Heavy B4’s future holds beyond the clear evidence that SpaceX will soon reinstall to reinstall it on an orbital launch mount that’s much closer to completion than it was the last time B4 was installed. At this point, it’s just as likely that the booster’s third launch mount installation will just be another mechanical fit test, though the hope is that it will kick off full-scale pneumatic and cryogenic proof testing. It could even culminate in the static fire of some or all of its 29 Raptor engines, which have been installed for several months.
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
