News
Astra ‘Rocket 3’ nosecone dooms first Florida launch attempt
On Thursday, February 10th, Astra Space’s Rocket 3.3 launch vehicle took off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) Launch Complex 46 (LC-46).
Unfortunately, while liftoff and booster ascent appeared to be more or less perfect, Rocket 3’s payload fairing failed to separate, triggering a series of events that caused its upper stage to enter an uncontrolled and unrecoverable spin after burning for just a few seconds. Astra was unable to salvage the spinning rocket, resulting in a mission failure well short of orbit.
“Unfortunately we heard that an issue has been experienced during flight that prevented the delivery of our customer payloads to orbit today. We are deeply sorry to our customers NASA, University of Alabama, the University of Mexico and the University of California Berkeley,” said Astra Space Director of Product Management Carolina Grossman. “More information will be provided as we complete the data review.”
Today’s launch comes after two previous aborted launch attempts. The first attempt on February 5th was delayed due to a CCSFS radar system malfunction. The second launch delay came on February 7th, after the rocket aborted briefly after ignition because of a minor telemetry issue.
The Mission
NASA’s first mission under the agency’s Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) Demonstration 2 contract hoped to launch four CubeSats to space as early as February 5th, 2022. The satellites, which made up the agency’s 41st Educational Launch of Nano-satellites (ELaNa) mission, were the first VCLS payloads launched – albeit unsuccessfully – from Cape Canaveral’s LC-46 pad, which last supported NASA’s Orion spacecraft Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) test flight in July 2019.
The satellites onboard the flight were developed by three universities and one NASA center:
- BAMA 1 (University of Alabama, Tusscolusa)
- INCA (New Mexico State University, Las Cruces)
- QubeSat (University of California, Berkeley)
- R5-S1 (NASA’s Johnson Space Center, Houston)
The ELaNa 41 mission CubeSats were selected through NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) and were assigned to the mission by NASA’s Launch Services Program based at Kennedy. CSLI provides launch opportunities for small satellite payloads built by universities, high schools, NASA Centers, and non-profit organizations.
About Astra
Founded in 2016, Astra Space is an American launch vehicle company based in Alameda, California. Astra’s official vision “is to Improve Life on Earth from Space by creating a healthier and more connected planet.” The company hopes to secure a large portion of the small satellite launch market, stating that it “offers the lowest cost-per-launch dedicated orbital launch service of any operational launch provider in the world.”
As of November 2021, Astra charges around $2.5-3.5M for a dedicated Rocket 3 launch, which can deliver up to 150 kg (330 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO). In comparison, for a dedicated Electron launch, Rocket Lab charges about $7.5M for 300 kg (660 lb) to LEO. For customers willing to accept a one-size-fits-all rideshare solution, SpaceX charges $1M for 200 kg (440 lb) to LEO or higher sun-synchronous orbits (SSOs).
While the aerospace company is based out of California, its frequent orbital and suborbital test flights have all been conducted at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska. Prior test flights used Rocket 1, Rocket 2, and Rocket 3 prototypes as Astra refined its design and embraced a hardware-rich development style that didn’t shy away from failure.
Rocket 3.3 reached orbit for the first time – carrying an instrumented boilerplate payload for the United States Space Force – on November 21st, 2021. Less than two months later, Rocket 3.3 (serial number LV08) attempted to carry several NASA-sponsored cubesats into orbit on February 10th, 2022 – also the rocket’s first East Coast launch. Like Rocket 3.3’s predecessors, the two-stage vehicle was fueled with liquid oxygen (LOx) and refined kerosene (RP-1). Powered by five Delphin engines, the first stage produces up to ~145 kilonewtons (32,500 lbf) of thrust at liftoff. The second stage is powered by one pressure-fed Aether engine that delivers about 3.3 kN (740 lbf) of thrust in the vacuum of space.
The unsuccessful launch attempt occurred just three months after Astra applied for their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launch license and less than one day after receiving that license.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
