News
SpaceX Starbase construction takes priority as next orbital Starship, Super Heavy pair come together
As SpaceX teams slowly prepare the first orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy booster for the next-generation rocket’s first full-stack launch, the company has simultaneously begun assembling a second ship/booster pair. However, it’s clear that orbital pad construction remains a priority.
Known as Ship 20 and Booster 4, the two stages of the first orbital-class Starship first arrived at the launch site in early August. Only eight weeks later has Starship S20 finally become the first of the pair to attempt and complete one of two crucial proof tests, opening the door for one or several Raptor static fires in the coming week or two. Meanwhile, Booster 4 has had all 29 of its Raptor engines installed, uninstalled, and reinstalled and twice been placed on and removed from Starbase’s orbital launch mount in the same time frame but has yet to attempt any proof testing.
Despite the apparent delays and challenges slowing Ship 20 and Booster 4’s test debuts and two plodding FAA reviews that appear all but guaranteed to preclude an orbital launch attempt in 2021, though, SpaceX has recently begun assembling a second two-stage Starship.
Save for Starhopper back in 2019, no Starship or Super Heavy prototype has spent nearly as long at the launch site without a single test as Ship 20 and Booster 4 have. To an extent, there have likely been some technical delays while assembling, outfitting, and working with two first-of-their-kind prototypes. Still, the difference between past vehicles like Starship SN15 and Super Heavy Booster 3 are so stark that some portion of the testing delays almost has to be a conscious decision made by SpaceX.
To be able to fully proof and static fire test Super Heavy B4, SpaceX first needs to plumb, wire, and outfit Starbase’s orbital launch mount and complete a majority of the orbital pad’s massive tank farm. However, the orbital pad and its many unfinished systems are situated just a thousand (~300m) east of the suborbital launch site and Starship test facilities, which are complete and ready for testing. To test a Starship at those facilities, SpaceX has to entirely clear the pad of personnel – now several hundred people at the peak of construction – for 6-12+ hours.
The implication is that SpaceX management effectively chose to rip off the bandage now rather than later, sacrificing timely testing of Starship S20 to allow a near-total focus on orbital pad construction and activation over the last ~8 weeks. It’s hard to say if that’s paid off but the fact that SpaceX has chosen this particular moment to begin assembling the next orbital-class Starship and Super Heavy suggests that a clearer plan is starting to come together.
B4/S20, meet B5/S21
Parts of Starship S21 and Super Heavy B5 have been floating around Starbase’s build site for weeks. There was a multi-week period, for example, where the site’s massive high bay was effectively unused – clearly a conscious choice given SpaceX’s history of Starship prototype production earlier this year and late last. Parts of Super Heavy B5 were likely ready for assembly (i.e. stacking) by mid to late August. The ‘mid bay’ used for Starship tank section assembly has been similarly underutilized for even longer – only recently accepting its first Starship S21 section after supporting assembly of the orbital pad’s final storage tank.
Instead, Booster 5 stacking began around September 15th. At the current rate of assembly, which has slowed down considerably in the last week, SpaceX’s second flightworthy Super Heavy could reach its full 69m (~225 ft) height as early as mid-October. Starship S20 likely won’t be far behind. Further, thanks to SpaceX’s preferred style of continuous improvement, Booster 5 and Ship 21 production already appear well on track to outpace Booster 4 and Ship 20. With B5, rather than installing a range of external equipment (avionics, wiring, plumbing) after assembly is finished, SpaceX appears to be completing some of those subsystems during stacking, potentially speeding up final assembly by 1-2+ weeks. With S21, SpaceX has begun outfitting the Starship’s nose cone with heat shield tiles far earlier in the assembly process than it did with S20.
Given that it has taken SpaceX the better part of a month to finish and spot-fix Starship S20’s heat shield since the prototype’s second trip to the test site, taking those lessons learned to heart and getting Starship S21’s heat shield installation right on the first try could cut weeks from final assembly.
In the meantime, after completing Ship 20’s first cryoproof test on September 29th, SpaceX will hopefully be able to kick off the first six-engine Raptor static fire test campaign within the next week or so. With any luck, the start of B5/S21 assembly also means that the orbital launch pad is nearly ready to support Super Heavy B4’s first proof tests, even if static fires with anything close to a full set of 29 Raptors appear to be weeks away. Regardless, it looks like it won’t be long before SpaceX will be juggling two pairs of orbital-class Starships and Super Heavy boosters.
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
