News
Boeing's astronaut capsule flies off course, fate uncertain after launch debut
Roughly 30 minutes after lifting off for the first time on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket, Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule suffered a major failure when it attempted to raise its orbit with onboard engines.
A few hours after the failure came to light, NASA and Boeing held a press conference to update members of the media on the situation, with the space agency offering some candid – if a bit odd – insight into Starliner’s anomalous launch debut. Before the spacecraft’s software threw a wrench into the gears, the plan was for Starliner to separate from ULA’s Atlas V Centaur upper stage and use its own thrusters to reach orbit and begin the trek up Earth’s gravity well to the International Space Station (ISS).
While it will likely take weeks or even months for Boeing and NASA to determine exactly what went wrong during the mission, preliminary information has already begun to paint a fairly detailed picture.
Around 15 minutes after liftoff, Starliner separated from the rocket as intended but it appears that things began to go awry almost immediately afterward. Most notably, according to NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine’s tweets and later comments, a very early look at the telemetry suggests that Starliner’s internal clock was somehow tricked into believing that the time was either earlier or later than it actually was.
Thinking that it was in the midst of a lengthy thruster firing meant to raise its orbit and send the spacecraft on its way to the space station, Starliner was thus focused on ensuring that it was pointed as accurately as possible. Although the space station is the size of a football field, in the vastness of space, rendezvousing with it is a bit like threading a needle. While firing thrusters to do so, spacecraft thus need to point themselves as accurately as possible.
While coasting before or after one of those orbit-boosting thruster firings, Starliner thought it was actually burning towards the space station and was thus very carefully controlling its orientation with a dozen or so smaller thrusters. In short, those unintentional thruster firings burned through a ton of Starliner’s limited propellant supply – enough to make it impossible (or nearly so) for the spacecraft to rendezvous and dock the ISS, a central purpose of this particular launch.
This ultimately means that Starliner is leaning heavily on the “test” aspect of this Orbital Flight Test (OFT), uncovering failure modes and bugs that Boeing was clearly unable to tease out with ground testing and simulation. While in a totally different ballpark, SpaceX similar Crew Dragon spacecraft suffered its own major failure earlier this year, although that capsule explosion occurred during intentional ground testing, whereas Starliner’s software failed during its high-profile launch debut and has severely curtailed the scope of the spacecraft’s first orbital flight test.
In fact, Bridenstine was unable to rule out the possibility that Boeing will have to attempt a second uncrewed orbital flight test (OFT) before Starliner will be qualified to launch the space agency’s astronauts. Although early signs suggest that Boeing will still be able to attempt to deorbit and recover the spacecraft a day or two from now, the fact that Starliner will not be able to perform critical demonstrations of its ISS rendezvous and docking capabilities will make it far harder for NASA to rationally certify the spacecraft for astronaut launches.
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, for reference, completed a more or less flawless launch, orbit raise, and rendezvous before docking with the ISS. It’s almost impossible to imagine NASA giving SpaceX permission to proceed immediately into its first astronaut launch if Crew Dragon had failed to reach the proper orbit or dock with the space station.
Regardless, it’s far too early to tell whether Boeing will have to repeat Starliner’s OFT. If Starliner performs absolutely perfectly between now and its planned soft-landing in New Mexico, there might be a chance that NASA will still allow Boeing to effectively cut corners to its astronaut launch debut, but only time will tell.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
