News
What’s causing SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy delays?
Although uncertainty in the schedule remains, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket appears to be nearly ready for its first engine ignition test (called a ‘static fire’) sometime within the next week or so.
An attempt at 1 PM EST today, January 16, was canceled for unspecified reasons, although Kennedy Space Center reportedly maintained the usual roadblock to prevent vehicles from driving past, implying that SpaceX still intends to conduct propellant loading tests with Falcon Heavy. It was noted earlier this morning by spaceflight journalist Chris Bergin that things were “a bit too quiet” if a test was indeed planned for today, and his intuition appears to have been correct. It still remains the case that Falcon Heavy is an experimental and untested rocket to an extent, and these delays are to be expected as SpaceX works out the inevitable kinks and bugs that arise during the extensive testing big launch vehicle has been and is still being put through.
KSC is in roadblock stance, so they will still do some testing it would seem, but we will have to wait for the Static Fire itself. https://t.co/DxzsRn85NR
— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) January 16, 2018
Due to range requirements in support of an upcoming launch of the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas 5 rocket, currently NET Thursday, SpaceX has postponed the static fire of Falcon Heavy without a replacement date. It is unlikely that another attempt will occur before the upcoming weekend, but SpaceX should have at least a solid week of uninterrupted range support once ULA’s launch occurs, hopefully without delay. Godspeed to ULA, in the meantime.
The crazy complexity of rocketry
Most recently, and perhaps somewhat related to Falcon Heavy’s static fire delays, SpaceX completed as many as two complete wet dress rehearsals (WDRs), which saw Falcon Heavy topped off with full tanks of its cryogenic (super cool) liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade jet fuel (RP-1). In essence, the rocket became equivalent to several hundred tons of carefully stabilized explosive. Nominally, these rehearsals appear entirely uneventful to an outside observer, with little more than ice formation and the occasional bursts of propellant tank vents to suggest that something important is occurring. However, anomalies like the failure of Falcon 9 during the Amos-6 static fire provide a staggering demonstration of just how explosive and sensitive a rocket’s fuel is, and Falcon Heavy has approximately three times the fuel capacity of Falcon 9. Empty, Falcon 9’s mass has been estimated to be around 30 metric tons, a minuscule amount of structure in the face of the more than 500 metric tons of propellant the vehicle carries at liftoff.
These propellant loading tests can also be challenging for reasons aside from their highly explosive nature. Due to basic realities of the physical nature of metal, the predominate ingredient for Falcon 9’s load-bearing structures, metallic structures shrink under extreme cold (and expand under heating). In the case of Falcon 9’s massive 45 meters (150 foot) tall first stage, the scale of this contraction can be on the order of several inches or more, particularly given SpaceX’s predilection towards cooling their propellant as much as possible to increase its energy density. For Falcon 9, these issues (thermodynamic loads) are less severe. However, add in three relatively different first stage boosters linked together with several extremely strong supports at both their tops and bottoms and that dynamic loading can become a fickle beast. The expansion or compression of materials due to temperature changes can create absolutely astounding amounts of pressure – if you’ve ever forgotten a glass bottled drink in the freezer and discovered it violently exploded at some future point, you’ll have experienced this yourself.
With several inches of freedom and the possibility that each Falcon Heavy booster might contract or expand slightly differently, these forces could understandably wreak havoc with the high precision necessary for the huge rocket to properly connect with the launch pad’s ground systems that transmit propellant, fluids, and telemetry back and forth. Information from two reliable Kennedy Space Center sources experienced with the reality of operating rockets, as well as NASASpaceflight.com, suggested that issues with dynamic loads (such as those created by thermal contraction/expansion) are a likely explanation for the delays, further evidenced by their observations that much of the pad crew’s attention appeared to be focused at the base of Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL). The TEL base hosts the clamps that hold the rocket down during static fires and launches, as well as the Tail Service Masts (TSMs) that connect with the Falcon 9/Heavy to transport propellant and data to the first stage(s). These connection points are both relatively tiny, mechanically sensitive, and absolutely critical for the successful operation of the rocket, and thus are a logical point of failure in the event of off-nominal or unpredicted levels of dynamic stresses.
-
- The white bars in this photo are half of Falcon Heavy’s seperation mechanism. A number of actuators take the place of the more common solid rocket motors used with vehicles like the Delta IV Heavy. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s three boosters and 27 Merlin 1D engines on full display. (SpaceX)
-
- Falcon Heavy. Modeled and rendered by NASASpaceflight forum user WBY1984. (WBY1984)
Test, launch, land, repeat.
All things considered, these difficulties demonstrate that even after months (even years) of relentless modeling, testing, remodeling, and retesting, rockets (and especially huge rockets like Falcon Heavy) are immensely complex, and even tiny mistakes can lead the vehicle to stray from its expected behavior. Quite simply, the reality of engineering only truly comes into play once hardware is fully in the loop, and it’s in this state that SpaceX has demonstrated again and again a distinct and elegant ability to learn from their hardware, rather than attempt to salve uncertainty with a neurotic and counterproductive level of statistical analysis, modelling, and documentation. The agile launch company still dabbles in those aspects when beneficial or necessary, but testing comes first in its importance.
The conclusion here, then, is that Falcon Heavy’s delays betray this aspect of SpaceX – a launch company that loves its fans, but also understands the need for cautious testing when it comes to new and untried rocket hardware. Whether Falcon Heavy succeeds or fails, SpaceX will learn from the proceedings, and they will be better off for it (although maybe less so financially…).
Follow along live as launch photographer Tom Cross and I cover these exciting proceedings as close to live as possible.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Instagram
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
