News
SpaceX’s second Super Heavy booster enters production in South Texas
In a rare burst of visible activity, SpaceX’s South Texas Starship factory has begun fabricating a second Super Heavy booster and taken a significant step forward on the first prototype.
Set to be the largest operational rocket stage ever built by more than a factor of two, Super Heavy is the booster tasked with launching a fully fueled and loaded Starship (~1400 mT or 3 million lbs) out of the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere. Powered by up to 28 Raptor engines, Super Heavy and Starship will weigh upwards of 5000 metric tons (~11 million lbs) and produce anywhere from 5600 to 7700 metric tons (12.5-17 million lbf) of thrust at liftoff.
Most importantly, though SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has noted that an optimized Starship might be able to reach orbit on a one-way trip, a giant, reasonably efficient booster like Super Heavy is necessary to send Starship into a healthy orbit with all the extra hardware and mass needed to make the orbital spaceship reusable. More than twice as heavy and two-thirds as tall as SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, that will be no small feat.
Following the appearance of Super Heavy booster number 1’s (BN1) unique common dome, extra-large ‘transfer tube’ segments, and a donut-like eight-Raptor thrust section last month, visible booster work settled down for the next several weeks. In the interim, Musk revealed that SpaceX aims to hop the first Super Heavy booster (BN1) just “a few months” into 2021, followed by the bombshell that the CEO wants to eventually catch Super Heavy boosters to avoid the need for landing legs entirely.
Two weeks after that latest info from Musk and a month after major booster-related factory activity, the first hardware intended for Super Heavy prototype BN2 was spotted on January 19th. Featuring a never-before-seen structural addition in the form of what looks like a hexagonal or octagonal steel ring, the booster’s unique forward dome represents the first real evidence of the modifications needed to install a variety of hardware specific to Super Heavy.
The limited nature and number of current views make it hard to conclude with certainty that the BN2 forward dome’s add-on is hexagonal or octagonal – either could technically be made to work. Barring a surprise design change, Super Heavy – like Falcon 9 and Heavy boosters – will sport four equally spaced grid fins and use them to ensure aerodynamic stability and control authority from hypersonic to supersonic velocities. Based on official SpaceX graphics, Super Heavy’s grid fins will be built out of welded steel, measure some 7 meters (23 ft) tall, and likely weigh 5+ metric tons apiece, thus requiring extremely powerful actuation systems and strong structural support.
Meanwhile, beyond Super Heavy BN2’s first visible appearance, the process of assembling the first booster prototype also took a significant step forward. Sometime on January 19th, SpaceX ended a long period of inactivity, stacking the first Super Heavy ring sections since November 2020. More specifically, SpaceX teams appear to have installed either one or two four-ring sections on an existing booster segment already inside the high bay.
If at rest on top of the rest of the stack in Mary’s (BocaChicaGal) latest photo, one of two Super Heavy ‘stacks’ inside the high bay is now 12 rings (three sections) tall, representing almost a third of a complete 70-meter (~230 ft) tall booster. As of the most recent look inside the high bay, there were two separate stacks of Super Heavy rings – one with four and the other with eight. Based on the location of the new 12-ring stack, it’s more likely than not that SpaceX has simply combined the 12 rings last seen inside the high bay rather than adding one or two new ring sections to one of the two separate stacks.
Ultimately, the return of Super Heavy stacking activity after a two-month pause is an encouraging sign that SpaceX has settled on a design for the first few prototype boosters and could, in fact, be ready to start testing BN1 “a few months” from now.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
