News
SpaceX Starship factory churning out new rocket parts with Elon Musk's help
SpaceX’s South Texas team of Starship engineers and technicians – including CEO Elon Musk himself – are working around the clock to manufacture hardware that will likely become the company’s next Starship prototype in the near future.
Over the last few days, SpaceX has made quick progress churning out shiny steel rings and wrapping up propellant tank domes – the next round of full-scale Starship hardware. To better build the first flight and orbit-capable prototypes, not to mention hundreds or even thousands of Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy boosters in the years to come, SpaceX teams and contractors have spent the last two months aggressively expanding the company’s Boca Chica, Texas facilities. In fact, the very same company that built Tesla’s newest tent-based Model 3 assembly line – Sprung Instant Structures – has erected part of a massive, new Starship factory.
Finally giving the company’s grizzled South Texas team a large, climate-controlled space to work from, CEO Elon Musk has also been spending more and more time at SpaceX’s upgraded Boca Chica facilities. Most recently, the executive gave Twitter followers the first official glimpse inside one of the new Starship production tents, revealing several giant spacecraft parts in various stages of completion. It’s currently unclear what the destiny of that new Starship hardware will be, but a few recent clues seem to point in one specific direction.
Yeah, we just finished two more propellant domes. SpaceX team & supporting suppliers are doing amazing work ramping Starship production.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 22, 2020
On January 10th, SpaceX intentionally – and largely successfully – ‘popped’ a Starship propellant tank to determine the quality of partially-upgraded manufacturing and assembly techniques. Built in just two weeks, Musk revealed shortly after the test that the baby Starship tank – filled with water – had made it to 7.1 bar (103 psi) before bursting.
While fairly meaningless on its own, it apparently means that the test tank survived well past the pressures Starships will need for orbital flight, although it only managed a safety margin of ~18%. To be fully flightworthy, Musk says that SpaceX wants Starship tanks to survive pressures of at least 8.5 bar (125 psi) – a margin of ~40% – before it considers the giant spacecraft safe enough for humans.

Given that the 7.1 bar the test tank reached is more than enough to support “orbital flight”, albeit with a less-than-optimal safety margin, it would be reasonable to assume that SpaceX would choose to immediately green-light the first flightworthy Starship spacecraft, deemed SN01 (serial number 01) by Musk. While that first prototype would thus be unable to launch humans and fulfill its ultimate goal as a Starship, it would give SpaceX experience building a second full-scale prototype (following Mk1) and give the company time to gradually upgrade its production facilities and manufacturing hardware.
Musk sketched out a number of possible improvements even before SpaceX tested its miniature Starship tank to destruction, indicating that “more precise parts” and an enclosed, wind-protected welding shop should be enough to raise Starship’s safety margin to ~40%. A step further down the road, Musk raised autogenous laser welding as a possibility for future production upgrades, although the advanced welding method would require a truly controlled environment and much more precise parts and manufacturing hardware.

In the last 24 hours, SpaceX has filed for a number of road closures for the highway adjacent to its Boca Chica Starship facilities, a sign that some form of rocket hardware transport and testing is imminent. As such, it now seems much more likely that SpaceX has decided to spend at least a few more weeks building and testing a second (and possibly a third) Starship tank prototype before kicking off the production of the next full-scale rocket.
Intriguingly, SpaceX has also received several large shipments of liquid nitrogen (LN2), a neutral cryogenic fluid often used to simulate cryogenic propellants without risking a massive explosion or fire. That LN2 wont last forever in SpaceX’s storage tanks, confirming that some form of cryogenic testing is imminent. The most likely explanation is that SpaceX is in the late stages of manufacturing a second tank prototype, soon to be shipped about a mile down the road to the company’s nearby test and launch facilities.
If SpaceX is planning to perform a burst test with liquid nitrogen, it will likely be quite the spectacle – much closer to Starship Mk1’s spectacular failure than the milder demise of the first miniature Starship tank. SpaceX has roadblocks scheduled every day for the rest of the week, so stay tuned to find out when exactly Starship’s next big test is expected.
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.