News
SpaceX destacks “420” Starship, Super Heavy pair for the third time
Update: Shortly before SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed that Super Heavy booster B4 and Starship S20 are no longer assigned to the rocket’s orbital launch debut, the company ‘destacked’ the pair for the third time.
Ship 20 was removed from Booster 4 on March 19th, two days before Musk’s tweets. That’s not unusual: it was actually Ship 20’s third removal from Super Heavy. However, almost as soon as the Starship was rolled out of the way, SpaceX began making visible preparations to also remove Super Heavy B4 from Starbase’s orbital launch mount. As of March 24th, the booster has been attached to a large crane for more than a day and a newly upgraded transport stand has been rolled into place beside the launch mount. It’s somewhat odd that the booster hasn’t already been removed but that step could happen at almost any moment, now – albeit likely in daylight.
Once both Ship 20 and Booster 4 have been removed, it’s hard to imagine that they will ever return to the orbital launch mount. In fact, at minimum, Super Heavy B4 will probably be retired almost immediately. Super Heavy B7 – a superior, refined, and upgraded prototype by almost every measure – is already almost fully assembled and could likely begin basic testing within a week or two.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that Super Heavy Booster B4 and Starship S20 are no longer scheduled to support the first orbital-class test flight of the world’s largest rocket.
Rumors, signs, and reports of the significant change have been flowing among unofficial spaceflight communities for months. Booster 4 and Ship 20 were first confirmed by Elon Musk to be the pair assigned to Starship’s orbital test flight (OTF) in the summer of 2021. When the pair first rolled out to the launch pad in early August, Musk seemed confident that they could be ready for an orbital launch attempt within a month or two. The same was true in November 2021, when Musk stated that the same Starship and Super Heavy pair could be ready for their first launch as early as January or February 2022.
Musk’s latest update on Starship’s orbital test flight continues that schedule optimism but also introduces several major changes – changes that could easily take several months to fully work through.
Crucially, Musk revealed that the first Starship to attempt an orbital-class launch will now feature upgraded Raptor V2 engines – engines that require an entirely new thrust structure design. That already all but guaranteed that B4 and S20 had been overtaken but Musk also explicitly confirmed that they would be replaced with a new pair in a later tweet.
That new pair – widely assumed to be Super Heavy B7 and Starship S24 – feature a wide range of design changes, including substantially modified header tanks, an entirely new nosecone design, new layouts for secondary systems (pressurization, avionics, heat exchangers, etc.), and more. Most importantly, their thrust structures – giant ‘pucks’ machined out of steel – have been tweaked to support new Raptor V2 engines instead of the Raptor V1 and V1.5 engines that have been installed and tested on all Starship and Super Heavy prototypes to date.
Musk believes that SpaceX will be able to build (and presumably qualify) all 39 of the Raptors Ship 24 and Booster 7 will need before the end of April and fully install them – as well as all the heat shield components that must be fitted around them – by the end of May 2022. It’s unclear if the SpaceX CEO is accounting for the extensive proof testing Ship 24 and Booster 7 will likely need to complete before being qualified for flight, including cryogenic proof tests, wet dress rehearsals, and at least a few static fire tests.
In fact, SpaceX has only performed a single three-engine static fire test with a fully outdated Super Heavy prototype. Before the company is confident in its booster design, it’s practically a certainty that one or more prototypes will be put through a lengthy test campaign that gradually evolves from igniting a few engines to igniting all 29 or 33 Raptors. That may actually be one of the reasons SpaceX appears to be retiring Booster 4 without a single static fire or flight test – performing all the requisite work may have ultimately been perceived as a dead-end when every future Starship and Super Heavy prototype will feature a heavily redesigned engine.
This is to say that much like Musk’s last few Starship OTF schedule estimates, May 2022 also appears to be extremely optimistic. Booster 7 could potentially be ready for cryogenic proof testing any day now but Ship 24 is still in five large pieces and probably at least a month from any form of test readiness. Still, there are some reasons for optimism. If Booster 7 actually does start basic proof testing this month or early next without waiting for its Raptor engines or for heat shield installation, SpaceX could theoretically complete cryoproofing, begin installing one or a few new Raptors at a time, and iteratively progress from static firing a few to all 33 engines as the engines are arriving at Starbase.
At a minimum, even if that razor-sharp test schedule isn’t possible, Booster 7 would at least have a month or so of extra testing over Ship 24, minimizing the disproportionate amount of testing each prototype will likely need to be qualified for flight. Unlike Booster 4, Ship 20 has completed several static fires and cryoproofs without any apparent issue.
For now, SpaceX continues to prepare Ship 24 sections for stacking and appears to be buttoning up Booster 7, which could easily be ready to roll out for basic testing within a few weeks – and maybe sooner.
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
