News
SpaceX Starship prototype ignites six engines, starts major brush fire
SpaceX has successfully ignited all six engines on its latest Starship prototype, taking a significant step towards ensuring that the upper stage will be ready for the rocket’s first orbital launch attempt.
Unfortunately, the same successful static fire of a Starship upper stage – potentially producing almost twice as much thrust as the booster of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket – scattered superheated debris hundreds of meters away, igniting a major brush fire. It’s not the first major fire caused by Starship activities in South Texas, and it likely won’t be the last.
Starship S24 completed its first successful static fire on August 9th, igniting two Raptor engines. Several unsuccessful attempts to test more engines followed throughout the rest of the month, and SpaceX ultimately decided to replace one of Starship S24’s three Raptor Vacuum engines in early September before trying again. After workers installed the new engine and buttoned up Ship 24, the stars eventually aligned on September 8th.
Kicking off the test, SpaceX pumped several hundred tons of liquid oxygen (LOx) and a much smaller quantity of liquid methane (LCH4) fuel into Ship 24 in about 90 minutes, producing a crisp layer of frost wherever the cryogenic liquids touched the skin of the rocket’s uninsulated steel tanks. No frost formed on Starship’s upper methane tank, implying that SpaceX only loaded methane fuel into internal ‘header’ tanks meant to store propellant for landings. The hundreds of tons of liquid oxygen, then, were likely meant as ballast, reducing the maximum stress Starship could exert on the test stand holding it to the ground.
That potential stress is substantial. Outfitted with upgraded Raptor 2 engines, Starship S24 could have produced up to 1380 tons (~3M lbf) thrust when it ignited all six for the first time at 4:30 pm CDT. On top of smashing the record for most thrust produced during a Starbase rocket test, Ship 24’s engines burned for almost 8 seconds, making it one of the longest static fires ever performed on a Starship test stand.
Several brush fires were visible almost immediately after clouds of dust and steam cleared. More likely than not, the combination of the extreme force, heat, and burn duration likely obliterated the almost entirely unprotected concrete surface below Ship 24. Despite continuous evidence that all Starship static fire operations would be easier and safer with the systems, SpaceX still refuses to install serious water deluge or flame deflector systems at Starbase’s test stands and launch pads.
Instead, under its steel Starship test stands, SpaceX relies on a single middling deluge spray nozzle and high-temperature concrete (likely martyte) that probably wouldn’t pass muster for a rocket ten times less powerful than Starship. In multiple instances, Starships have shattered that feeble martyte layer, creating high-velocity ceramic shards that damage their undersides or Raptor engines, requiring repairs and creating risky situations. With essentially no attempt at all to tame the high-speed several-thousand-degree Raptor exhaust, static fire tests at Starbase thus almost always start small grass fires and cause minor damage, but those fires rarely spread.
Ship 24’s first six-engine test was not so lucky, although the Starship made it through seemingly unscathed. Most likely, eight long seconds of blast-furnace conditions melted the top layer of surrounding concrete and shot a hailstorm of tiny superheated globules in almost every direction. Indeed, in almost every direction there was something readily able to burn, a fire started. In several locations to the south and west, brush caught fire and began to burn unusually aggressively, quickly growing into walls of flames that sped across the terrain. To the east, debris even made it into a SpaceX dumpster, the contents of which easily caught fire and burned for hours.
Eventually, around 9pm CDT, firefighters were able to approach the safed launch pad and rocket, but the main fire had already spread south, out of reach. Instead, they started controlled burns near SpaceX’s roadblock, hoping to clear brush and prevent the fire (however unlikely) from proceeding towards SpaceX’s Starbase factory and Boca Chica Village homes and residents.
The nature of the estuary-like terrain and wetlands means that it’s very easy to stop fires at choke points, so the fire likely never posed any real threat to Boca Chica residents, SpaceX employees, or onlookers. It was also unlikely to damage SpaceX’s launch facilities or return to damage Starship S24 from the start, as both of are surrounded by a combination of concrete aprons, empty dirt fields, and a highway.
Still, the “brush” burned by the fire is a protected habitat located in a State Park and Wildlife Refuge. While fire is a natural and often necessary element of many habitats, including some of those in Boca Chica, this is the second major brush fire caused by Starship testing since 2019, which may be less than desirable. At a minimum, fighting fires around Starbase generally requires firefighters to walk or even drive on protected wetlands and salt flats, the impact of which could ultimately be as bad for wildlife and habitats as the fire itself.
SpaceX’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), which fully greenlit the company’s existing Starbase Texas facilities and launch plans earlier this year, only discusses fire [PDF] a handful of times. Repairing and preventing future damage to wetlands, however, comes up dozens of times and is the subject of numerous conditions SpaceX must meet before the FAA will grant Starship an orbital launch license.
Ultimately, given that the FAA approved that PEA in full awareness of a 2019 brush fire caused by Starhopper (an early Starship prototype) that may have been as bad or worse than 2022’s, there’s a chance that it will play a small role in the ongoing launch licensing process, but the odds of it being a showstopper are close to zero. Still, it would likely benefit SpaceX at least as much as the surrounding Boca Chica wilderness if it can implement changes that prevent major brush fires from becoming a regular ‘accidental’ occurrence.
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
