News
SpaceX begins installing new ‘Raptor 2’ engines on Super Heavy booster
SpaceX has begun installing new ‘Raptor 2’ engines on Super Heavy Booster 7 after the prototype completed a range of tests and returned to the company’s South Texas ‘Starbase’ rocket factory.
Earlier this month, SpaceX transported Booster 7 (B7) in the opposite direction, returning the 67-meter (~220 ft) tall rocket to Starbase’s orbital launch site (OLS) for the second time after it was forced to head back to the factory for repairs. Repairs completed, SpaceX dove headfirst into the process of verifying that the booster had been returned to full health and immediately filled its tanks to the brim with at least 3000 tons (>6.5M lb) of liquid nitrogen and oxygen – better known as a cryogenic proof test.
Less than 48 hours after completing its first post-repair test, Booster 7 sailed through another full cryoproof test without losing a beat. On May 13th, two days later, SpaceX attached a crane to Super Heavy B7 and removed it from the orbital launch mount before rolling the rocket back to Starbase’s build site on May 14th. Without official confirmation, which is increasingly rare, it was impossible to determine the results of the testing with certainty, but the speed of the process and Booster 7’s rapid launch mount removal made the two most extreme outcomes the most likely.
A quick return to the build site could have been explained by a significant vehicle failure or a major issue with SpaceX’s repair job – no point in continuing to test a vehicle that can’t be fully tested. On the exact opposite hand, a near-perfect test campaign in which all objectives were more or less achieved without major hiccups could also explain the quick return. In general, the evidence was in favor of the more optimistic explanation. Had a major issue been uncovered during the first post-repair cryoproof, it’s difficult to imagine that SpaceX would have completed the exact same test – in full less than 48 hours later.
However, SpaceX moved an in-situ Raptor engine installation stand towards Booster 7 and the orbital launch mount shortly before testing restarted, hinting – for the moment – that the company wanted to begin installing Raptor engines immediately after cryoproof testing. But mid-way through testing, the stand was moved back to its storage area and Super Heavy was instead removed from the mount and returned to the factory, adding a little uncertainty.
Concerns were immediately assuaged on May 17th when SpaceX was spotted moving Raptor engines from a production tent to the ‘megabay’ assembly building containing Booster 7. While the location of the new bay makes it difficult to peek inside from public viewpoints, preventing direct confirmation, it’s very likely SpaceX has begun installing new Raptor 2 engines on Super Heavy B7.
Additionally, confirming some of the more optimistic speculation about SpaceX’s decision to move Booster 7 back to build site, two of the three Raptor engines spotted on May 17th were also labeled “E26” and “E28.” Unless SpaceX’s engine numbering conventions have changed, the labels identify the engines as three of 20 ‘Raptor Boost’ engines that will ultimately populate the outer ring of Super Heavy B7’s aft end. More importantly, the installation of any Raptor Boost 2 (RB2) engines likely indicates that SpaceX has decided to install a full set of 33 Raptors on the booster before kicking off static fire testing.
To limit risk, SpaceX could have begun test-firing Booster 7 with just 1-3 Raptor engines installed and gradually added more as confidence grew. Instead, SpaceX appears to have accepted the added risk of losing 33 brand-new Raptor 2 engines in one fell swoop in return for the possibility of a much faster test campaign. If there are no major surprises during static fire testing, in other words, Booster 7 could be ready for flight far more quickly if the process begins with all 33 engines already installed. Installing Booster 7’s Raptors, heat shield, and aerocovers will be easier back at the build site.
Doing it all at once should also help prevent Booster 7 from suffering Booster 4’s fate and wallowing, unfinished, for months without completing a single useful test. If the gamble works, the first stage of a two-stage Starship could be ready for an orbital launch attempt in just a few months. If the gamble fails and Booster 7 is damaged, destroyed, or otherwise unable to pass the necessary tests, SpaceX will simply move on to Booster 8 sooner than later, having wasted less time on a more cautious Booster 7 test campaign.
It’s unclear how long it will take SpaceX to install all 33 Raptors, construct a heat shield around those engines, and finish buttoning up the rest of Booster 7. In an adjacent assembly bay, SpaceX appears to have nearly finished assembling a similarly upgraded Starship – Ship 24 – that’s first in line to ride Booster 7 into space. The company has also tentatively requested road closures for three 12-hour test windows on May 23rd, 24th, and 25th that either vehicle could use.
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
