News
SpaceX’s Starhopper cleared by FAA for second and final flight test as locals urged to exit homes
After a full two weeks spent waiting for an FAA permit, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and local South Texas authorities appear to be preparing Starhopper for a second major flight test as early as Monday, August 26th.
Assuming the FAA comes through with a permit, Starhopper is scheduled to lift off no earlier than 5pm EDT (21:00 UTC) on August 26th for a flight test expected to smash the low-fidelity Starship prototype’s previously altitude record of ~20m (65 ft). Confirming initial reports from NASASpaceflight.com, Musk also stated that Starhopper’s second flight will be its last, after which the steel rocket test-bed will be converted for stationary use at SpaceX’s South Texas facilities.
Prior to Musk tweeting that Starhopper may be nearing approval for its next flight, the SpaceX CEO revealed that delays were centered around the FAA’s apparent unwillingness to permit the vehicle’s next flight. Musk specifically stated that the FAA wanted more “hazard analysis”, meaning that the US aviation administration had concerns that Starhopper could pose a serious threat to local residents in a tiny housing development known as Boca Chica Village.
Technically speaking, Boca Chica Village is just 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away from SpaceX’s Starhopper launch facilities, where the vehicle is expected to reach a maximum altitude of no more than 200m (650 ft) as early as August 26th. FAA regulations tend to be prescriptive and extremely rigid, understandable given the breadth of US aviation-related activities the agency is tasked with regulating. However, a basic back-of-the-envelope analysis of Starhopper’s 200m hop suggests that the risk to local residents – even those as few as 1.5 miles away from the test – is minuscule.
Based on Starhopper’s inaugural flight, its lone Raptor engine – producing up to 200 tons (450,000 lbf) of thrust – is not exactly capable of rapidly moving the Starship prototype. For all accounts and purposes, Starhopper is a spectacularly heavy hunk of steel with the aerodynamics of a cylindrical brick – capable of flight solely through the brute-force application of a literal rocket engine. To make it even half of the distance from its launch site to the Village, Starhopper would have to remain in controlled flight while radically deviating from its planned trajectory, all while its flight termination system (FTS) – explosives meant to destroy the vehicle in a worst-case scenario – completely fails to activate.
As evidence of the apparent lack of perceived risk to local residents, Cameron County, Texas officials distributed flyers to Village residents advising – but not requiring – those choosing to remain at their homes during the test to go outside during Starhopper’s next flight. This is recommended to avoid flying glass in the event that the vehicle explodes, potentially shattering windows with the shockwave that could result, but clearly demonstrates the fact that county officials believe there is a near-zero chance of Starhopper actually impacting anywhere near the houses.
Ultimately, Starhopper’s limited flight tests clearly pose little to no actual risk to residents, but this chapter does raise a far more significant question: what happens once Starship Mk1 is ready and the flight tests SpaceX is pursuing involve distances and heights on the order of several, tens, or hundreds of kilometers? For now, answers will have to wait til a later date.
A Hop and a skip into retirement
Aside from the delays and apparent lack of consensus on the safety of Starhopper’s minor hop tests, Musk confirmed that the prototype’s second test flight ever will likely be its last, providing some interesting insight into SpaceX’s next steps. Most notably, the fact that SpaceX is willing and ready to fully retire Starhopper after such a limited test series serves as a fairly confident statement that orbital-class Starship Mk1 (Texas) and Mk2 (Florida) prototypes are extremely close to flight-readiness.
Roughly a month ago, Musk tweeted that those Starship prototypes could be ready for their first flights as early as mid-September to mid-October, “2 to 3 months” from mid-July. In additional comments made on August 20th, Musk stated that his planned Starship presentation would be delayed in light of Starhopper’s own delays, and is now instead expected to occur around a major Starship Mk1 integration milestone in “mid September”.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, Starhopper’s brief service life is entirely unsurprising, delayed by issues with Raptor engines to the point that SpaceX’s far more valuable Starship prototypes – having made relentless progress – are already nearing completion. Once those Starships are ready for almost any kind of integrated testing, Starhopper will be made entirely and immediately redundant.
“According to Musk, either or both of those orbital-class prototypes could be ready for their inaugural flight tests as early as mid-September, perhaps just 1-2 months from now. Given that Starships Mk1 and Mk2 are significantly higher fidelity than Starhopper, the ungainly testbed will likely become redundant the moment that its successors are ready for flight. In other words, Starhopper is fast approaching the end of its useful life, and SpaceX’s fight for a 200m hop-test permit could ultimately be a waste of time, effort, and money if said permit doesn’t also cover Starship Mk1.”
Teslarati.com, August 20th, 2019
On another positive note, CEO Elon Musk says that Starhopper won’t be ‘retired’ to the scrapyard and will instead be lightly modified to serve as an in-situ test stand for Raptor engines, a useful addition once SpaceX South Texas moves on to multi-engine Starship and Super Heavy testing.
With any luck, SpaceX will attempt to livestream Starhopper’s second attempted flight. Stay tuned for updates on the 5pm EDT, August 26th test.
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
