News
SpaceX Starship nails ‘flip’ maneuver in explosive landing video
Update: SpaceX has published a video taken near the launch pad of Starship nailing an exotic ‘flip’ maneuver shortly before a hard landing destroyed the rocket.
Both the company, test directors, and CEO Elon Musk have all made it abundantly clear that despite the explosive end, Starship SN8’s maiden flight was a spectacular success, proving that the rocket is capable of performing several previously-unproven maneuvers and surviving the associated stresses. Notably, according to tweets posted by Musk not long after, Starship SN8 performed almost perfectly, failing a soft landing (already proven by SN5 and SN6) solely because of low pressure in the rocket’s secondary ‘header’ fuel tank.
For unknown reasons, that tank or its associated plumbing were unable to maintain the pressure needed to feed Raptor with enough propellant, resulting in fuel starvation mid-burn. A lack of fuel and surplus of oxygen effectively turned the landing engine into a giant oxygen torch, melting the copper walls of its combustion chamber (hence the green plume). Had the header tank maintained the correct pressure, SN8 would have very likely landed intact (or at least had a much softer landing).
In simpler terms, it seems that Raptor isn’t to blame for Starship SN8’s failed landing and fixing a pressurization problem will be dramatically faster and easier than rectifying a rocket engine design flaw.
In perhaps the most spectacular aerospace demonstration since Falcon Heavy’s 2018 debut, SpaceX’s first full-size Starship prototype came within a hair’s breadth of sticking the landing after an otherwise successful ~12.5 km (7.8 mi) launch debut.
To quote SpaceX’s test director, heard live on the company’s official webcast moments after Starship serial number 8 (SN8) exploded on impact, “Incredible work, team!” For most, praise shortly after a rocket explosion could easily feel nonsensical, but in the context of SpaceX’s iterative approach to development, a Starship prototype failing just moments before the end of a multi-minute test can be considered a spectacular success.
Chock full of surprises, Starship SN8 ignited its three Raptor engines for the third time and lifted off at 4:45 pm CST (UTC-6) on the program’s high-altitude launch debut.
About 100 seconds after liftoff, already representing the longest-known ignition of one – let alone three – Raptor engines, one of those three engines appeared to shut down, causing the two remaining engines to gimbal wildly in an effort to retain control. Another two minutes after that, one of those Raptors also shut down, leaving one engine active. That one engine continued to burn for another minute and a half, producing just enough thrust to more or less maintain Starship SN8’s altitude at apogee while performing a bizarre horizontal slide maneuver.
Finally, at a bit less than five minutes after liftoff, Starship cut off all Raptor engines and began falling back to earth. Looking spectacularly similar to fan-made renders and CGI videos of the highly-anticipated ‘skydiver’ or ‘belly-flop’ maneuver, Starship – belly down – spent around two minutes in a rock-solid freefall, using four large flaps to maintain stability.
Around 4:52 pm, Starship SN8 performed exactly as expected, igniting one – and then two – Raptor engines while fully parallel to the ground to complete an aggressive 90-degree flip, transitioning into vertical flight for an attempted landing. Unfortunately, although it’s difficult to judge what was intentional and what was not, things began to go wrong after that point -visible in the form of one of the two reignited Raptors flashing green before shutting down.
At the same time, the plume of the lone remaining engine flashed an electric green, quite literally consuming its copper-rich internals in an unsuccessful attempt to slow Starship down. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Raptor performed “great” throughout the launch and landing attempt, with the bright-green plume likely explained by extremely oxygen-rich combustion caused by low “fuel header tank pressure.”
Regardless of the specific cause, Starship SN8 smashed into the ground around 10-20 seconds early, traveling about 30 m/s (~70 mph) too fast. To be clear, in SpaceX’s eyes, the test – primarily focused on demonstrating multi-engine ascent, freefall stability, header tank handover, engine reignition, and a flip-over maneuver – was a spectacular success, completing almost every single objective and seemingly doing so without any major issues.
Clocking in at an incredible (and unexpected) ~400 seconds (~6.5 minutes) from liftoff to explosion, it’s difficult to exaggerate the sheer quantity of invaluable data SpaceX has likely gathered from SN8’s sacrifice. Thanks to SN8’s primarily successful debut, SpaceX’s Starship test and launch facilities (minus the rocket’s remains on the landing zone) appear to be almost completely unharmed, likely requiring only minor repairs and refurbishment. Further, Starship SN9 is effectively complete and patiently waiting a few miles down the road, ready to roll to the launch pad almost as soon as SpaceX has understood the cause of SN8’s hard landing.
Stay tuned for more analysis, photos, and videos as the dust settles.
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
