News
SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review is inches from the finish line
Update: Just two days after the FAA’s latest delay announcement, an online portal documenting SpaceX’s Starbase environmental assessment progress has been updated to show that the last step requiring “interagency consultations” was completed on June 2nd.
In theory, that means that to successfully complete its Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for orbital Starship launches, SpaceX merely needs to incorporate all recommendations, requirements, or mitigations added during the interagency review process into one final draft and presumably secure the approval of all relevant stakeholders one last time. Once those documents are complete, approved, and published, all Starbase will need to begin orbital Starship test flights is an FAA launch license.
Securing that launch license is its own can of worms with plenty of unique challenges, but it’s highly unlikely that SpaceX and the FAA won’t be able to come to some kind of agreement allowing the company to begin those test flights within a month or two of receiving a good environmental review. According to the FAA, the final results of the Starbase PEA are scheduled to be released on June 13th.
The US Federal Aviation Administration says that its environmental review of SpaceX’s plan to conduct orbital Starship launches out of South Texas has been delayed for the fifth time in five months.
However, despite the chronic delays and the FAA’s odd decision to announce a new delay every month instead of simply acknowledging that it doesn’t know when the process will be finished, there are now even more reasons to expect a positive outcome.
Even though there were attempts to spin the new information into something negative, a document acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by Bloomberg revealed that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had decided to approve its portion of the Starbase environmental review. Their only condition: that SpaceX implement a few small mitigation measures, “including contracting with a qualified biologist to conduct monitoring of vegetation and birds, operating an employee shuttle between the launch facility site and nearby town of Brownsville, reducing vehicle traffic, and adjusting lights to minimize the impact on sea turtles.” Bloomberg chose not to publish the documents it received through the FOIA process.
In the same set of documents, the FWS also revealed that SpaceX has removed a request for permission to build a small desalination plant, a natural gas production and liquefaction plant, and a natural gas power plant at or near Starbase’s launch site from Starbase’s first Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). That change comes as little surprise. In fact, SpaceX’s decision to pursue a “programmatic” assessment instead of a more common standalone assessment means that the company will be able to pursue additions to a basic Starbase environmental approval without having to rebuild the foundation each time.
In this case, a “basic approval” would mean the ability to conduct at least a few orbital Starship launches per year. Once that foundation is secured, SpaceX should be able to tier new environmental assessments on top of it and pursue permission for a desalination plant, natural gas production, more annual launches, or any other additions that might benefit Starbase. The simpler the foundation, the harder it should be for environmental stakeholders and agencies to protest or prevent SpaceX from receiving a good outcome.
“The FAA now plans to release the Final PEA on June 13, 2022 to account for ongoing interagency consultations concerning Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. All other consultations and analysis have been completed at this time.”
Another cause for optimism: after four delays of one or two months, the FAA’s latest delay announcement only pushes the conclusion of the review from May 31st to June 13th. Additionally, the FAA confirmed that only one small component of the entire review remains unfinished. Every other major component has been completed successfully and will likely result in a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Mitigated FONSI that would greenlight the environmental side of conducting orbital Starship launches out of Boca Chica, Texas.
When the draft PEA was first published, the FAA noted several points of contention over Section 4(f) compliance, which is designed to “protect significant publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, as well as significant historic sites, whether they are publicly or privately owned.” At the time, the main problem was SpaceX’s request to close the public Boca Chica Beach and the only highway to it for up to 500 hours (~42 days), as well as a contingency that would allow for another 300 hours of closures to safely respond to emergencies.
Thanks to an even more in-depth environmental impact statement (EIS) completed in 2014 for a Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch pad where Starship’s launch site now stands, we know that SpaceX has already met Section 4(f) demands with a plan for up to 180 hours of road closures per year. In the absolute worst-case scenario, SpaceX should be able to drastically reduce its road closure request to satisfy the Department of Transportation. Subsisting on roughly 20-30 days of closures per year would undoubtedly maim Starbase’s utility but it would at least allow SpaceX to conduct a few basic orbital test flights and some limited ground testing while it rapidly redirects most of its effort to finishing alternative Starship production and launch facilities in Florida.
Regardless, it’s now quite likely that SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review will finally be over by the end of June, freeing up the FAA and SpaceX to focus fully on the launch license side of the equation. Meanwhile, SpaceX still has weeks or even months of work ahead of it to prepare a Starship and Super Heavy pair for their first orbital launch attempt, so (for now) there is no risk of the company being forced to sit around and wait for the gears of bureaucracy to turn.
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
