News
SpaceX preparing for third Starship ‘full stack’
SpaceX appears to be preparing Starship 20 and Super Heavy Booster 4 for their third ‘full stack’ demonstration after two seemingly successful tests in August 2021 and February 2022.
The first, completed in early August 2021, was mostly for show and saw SpaceX stack the unfinished prototypes with a giant crane – fighting the coastal winds throughout. After just a few hours stacked, Ship 20 was removed and returned to Starbase, where workers spent several more weeks (mostly) finishing the prototype. Booster 4 followed suit several weeks later and ultimately took another three months of work to reach some level of test readiness.
After Ship 20 and Booster 4 completed a series of tests in the last few months of 2021 and early 2022, the two were re-stacked in mid-February – once again for show. This time, the stacked Starship served as a backdrop for SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s first official Starship presentation in more than two years. However, despite the fact that neither prototype was actually tested during the second stack, SpaceX did use the opportunity to partially debut Starbase’s ‘orbital launch integration tower’ and used that towers trio of giant arms to lift, stack, and stabilize Starship S20 on top of Super Heavy B4.
Ship 20 was ‘destacked’ with the tower’s arms just a few days after Musk’s event – an undeniably rapid and impressive achievement for the first real use of the ‘chopstick’ arms but still far from demonstrating that Ship 20, Booster 4, or the orbital launch site (OLS) are ready for orbital test flights. Since then, however, Starbase’s launch facilities have admittedly been almost as busy as they’ve ever been with Starship and Super Heavy cryoproof tests.
Ship 20 completed its first basic OLS cryogenic proof test or ‘cryoproof’ just two days after it was destacked. Additional Starship S20 cryoproofs followed on February 17th (the day after), February 22nd, and March 3rd. Super Heavy B4 completed its own cryoproofs on February 18th and March 1st, the latter of which may have actually been the fullest a Starship booster has ever been filled. All told, SpaceX completed no less than six major B4/S20 cryoproof tests in 15 days.
Crucially, all six cryoproofs were performed with Starbase’s nascent orbital tank farm, thoroughly testing its storage and distribution capabilities. Additionally, because SpaceX began liquid methane deliveries on February 13th, some of those tests – particularly with Ship 20 – may have even been proper wet dress rehearsals, meaning that SpaceX may have filled the rocket(s) with liquid methane (LCH4) and liquid oxygen (LOx) propellant to replicate preparations for a real launch.
At a minimum, Super Heavy Booster 4’s oxidizer tank was fully filled with liquid oxygen – and possibly pressurized with hot gaseous oxygen – during its March 1st cryoproof, while its fuel tank was filled about two-thirds of the way either with liquid nitrogen (LN2) or methane. Prior to its February and March tests, Booster 4 had already completed three cryoproofs – some also using LOx – in December 2021. Ship 20 had completed a cryoproof and four static fire tests.
All told, short of finally performing a full Super Heavy wet dress rehearsal and static fire at the orbital launch site, it’s not all that clear what more SpaceX can derive from additional individual cryoproof testing of Ship 20 or Booster 4. Several things do still need to be demonstrated, however. First, the OLS launch tower has yet to use its arms to remotely install a Super Heavy on the orbital launch mount. More importantly, SpaceX has yet to use the launch tower and its swinging ship umbilical arm to cryoproof or fuel a Starship while stacked on top of a Super Heavy. Finally, SpaceX has also yet to simultaneously perform a cryoproof or wet dress rehearsal test of a stacked Starship and Super Heavy, which will be necessary for orbital test flights.
One or several of those to-be-completed tests may be why SpaceX appears to have begun preparing to install Ship 20 on top of Booster 4 for the third time. On March 14th, Starship S20 was moved towards the launch tower and on March 15th, the ship was slotted between its ‘chopstick’ arms. Based on stack #2, the ship could be lifted at any point – day or night – and installed on top of Super Heavy in a matter of hours.
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
