News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut could still happen this year
Despite the spectacular demise of a full-scale prototype just days ago, a senior SpaceX engineer and executive believes that Starship could still be ready for its first orbital launch attempt before the end of the year.
Even if the first launch attempt fails, that milestone – if realized – would be one of the single biggest upsets in the history of spaceflight, proving that Saturn V-scale orbital-class rockets can likely be built in spartan facilities with common materials for pennies on the dollar. Much like Falcon 1 suffered three launch failures before successfully reaching orbit, there’s a strong chance that Starship’s first shot at orbit will fall short, although each full-up launch failure would likely cost substantially more than the current prototypes being routinely tested to destruction in South Texas.
Most recently, what CEO Elon Musk later described as a “a minor test of a quick disconnect” went wrong in a spectacular fashion, causing a major liquid methane leak that subsequently ignited and created a massive explosion. Although Starship SN4 did technically complete its fifth Raptor engine static fire test just a minute or so prior, the ship and its immediate surroundings were obliterated by the violent explosion, leaving little more than steel shrapnel and the broken husk of a launch mount behind. It’s in this context that one of SpaceX’s most levelheaded, expert executives believes that an orbital launch could still happen this year.
While Starship SN4’s demise and the continued possibility of the ship’s orbital launch debut occurring less than seven months from now may seem at odds with each other, that’s actually just a side effect of the approach SpaceX has always taken when developing brand new rockets and spacecraft. Following the lead of the scrappy teams that used the exact same methods to design, test, and fly the massive Saturn rockets that took humans to the Moon, SpaceX has always preferred to learn by doing.
Inevitably, testing minimum viable products to their limits will lead to failures, but those failures are actually extremely valuable so long as they are extensively analyzed and learned from. That’s exactly what SpaceX has been doing for the last six or so months with full-scale Starship prototypes: building, testing, failing, and improving in an unending cycle. Built slowly with inferior methods, Starship Mk1 almost immediately during its first pressure test in November 2019. SpaceX took that failure, extracted all the insight it could, and dramatically improved its production methods before completing Starship SN1 barely three months later.
Prior to SN1, SpaceX built and tested two stout test tanks to failure, ultimately achieving pressures of ~8.5 bar – sufficient for reliable human spaceflight – with the second tank on January 30th, 2020. On February 28th, Starship SN1 was unfortunately destroyed by a faulty ‘thrust puck’ (Raptor engine mount). Just 10 days later, SpaceX successfully tested a third ad-hoc test tank, proving that it had already rectified the engine section design flaw. Hardware isn’t always the only problem, however, and Starship SN3 was destroyed by human operator error during a cryogenic proof test on April 3rd.
Starship SN4 was completed and moved to the launch pad less than a month later and began testing just a few days after that, quickly racking up milestones as it became the first full-scale prototype to pass cryogenic proof testing, perform a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) with real propellant, fire up a Raptor engine, and complete a more ambitious cryogenic pressure test. Prior to the ground systems fuel leak that killed it, SN4 was possibly just days away from attempting the inaugural flight of a full-scale Starship prototype.
With Starship SN4 now steel confetti, Starship SN5 – effectively complete – will likely take over where its predecessor left off, heading to the launch pad within the next week or so before attempting a cryogenic pressure test and Raptor static fire to clear it for flight. Per Koenigsmann, that flight debut could come just a few weeks from now – likely before the end of June if replacement ground equipment can be quickly completed. If Starship SN5 survives that hop debut, it may ultimately be upgraded with a nosecone, flaps, and two additional Raptor engines to perform a dramatic 20 km (~12 mi) flight, capped with a supersonic skydiver-style reentry and landing test.
Once that capability has been successfully demonstrated, Super Heavy development and orbital Starship operation and reentry are the next critical hurdles. If Koenigsmann is correct, it’s safe to say that the first fully heat-shielded Starships and the beginnings of the first one or several Super Heavy booster prototypes will begin to appear in South Texas within the next few months.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
