News
DeepSpace: China tests SpaceX-reminiscent grid fins after iSpace snags orbital milestone
Eric Ralph · August 1st, 2019
Welcome to the latest edition of DeepSpace! Each week, Teslarati space reporter Eric Ralph hand-crafts this newsletter to give you a breakdown of what’s happening in the space industry and what you need to know.
Although the accomplishments aren’t quite as flashy as a launch to the Moon, the last week has featured a number of interesting developments and significant milestones from both the state-run and quasi-commercial wings of Chinese spaceflight.
In the commercial realm, Chinese startup iSpace became the country’s first commercial entity to successfully reach orbit, achieving the feat with a three-stage solid rocket called Hyperbola 1.
One day later, state-owned Chinese company China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) completed its 50th successful Long March 2 rocket launch on a relatively routine government spy satellite mission. Unique was the fact that the rocket marked the first flight test of grid fins – extremely similar to those used on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 – on a Long March rocket.
The march to orbit
- In 2019 alone, three Chinese spaceflight startups have made their first orbital launch attempts and more tries are planned in the second half of the year. OneSpace and LandSpace both got close but ended up suffering partial failures that cut their attempts short before safely reaching orbit.
- Enter iSpace: one of dozens of startups in a burgeoning Chinese commercial spaceflight industry, the company’s three-stage solid rocket – named Hyperbola 1 – became the first Chinese startup-launched rocket to successfully reach orbit on July 25th.
- Although a large amount of the hardware may well have been procured (or licensed) wholesale from CASC, the success still signifies the start of a new alternative to government launches for companies (and perhaps government agencies) seeking to launch smaller satellites.
- Hyperbola 1 stands about 21m (68 ft) tall, is 1.4m (4.6 ft) in diameter at its widest point, and weighs about 31 tons (68,000 lb) when fully fueled. Three solid rocket stages are followed by an extremely small fourth stage meant to circularize the payload(s) in low Earth orbit (LEO).
- The rocket is capable of launching as much as 260 kg (570 lb) to a 500 km (310 mi) sun-synchronous orbit (SSO).
- For iSpace, Hyperbola 1 is more of a stopgap measure as the company works to develop Hyperbola 2, a significantly larger launch vehicle meant to feature a reusable booster and internally-developed liquid rocket engines.
- Ultimately, Hyperbola 1 reaching orbit is an exciting milestone, but it will be far more significant when a Chinese startup reaches orbit with a launch vehicle it has truly designed and built itself. A number of companies aim to do just that next year (2020).
The sincerest form of flattery…
- A day later (July 26th) and approximately 1000 miles (1600 km) to the southeast, state-run corporation CASC was preparing for a routine launch of its Long March 2C rocket, carrying a trio of relatively small spacecraft for a government spy satellite constellation.
- Technically known as YW-30 Group-5, the launch was a routine success that just so happened to be the Long March 2 family’s 50th successful launch in more than 35 years. The family has only suffered one in-flight failure.
- Long March 2C is a two-stage rocket that stands 42m (138 ft) tall (shorter than Falcon 9’s first stage), 3.35m (11 ft) wide, and weighs ~233 tons (514,000 lb) fully fueled. The 2C variant is capable of launching ~3850 kg (8500 lb) into LEO and more than 1250 kg (2750 lb) into geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
- Although the rocket’s 50th launch success milestone is worth recognizing, this particular launch wound up drawing a significantly greater amount of attention for an entirely different reason: attached to the outside of the Long March 2C’s booster interstage was a quartet of immediately familiar grid fins.
- SpaceX has grown famous in the last five or so years for its spectacularly successful Falcon 9 recovery and reusability, aided in no small part by grid fins used by the booster to retain aerodynamic control authority during its hypersonic jaunts through the atmosphere.
- The appearance of grid fins on a Chinese rocket – looking undeniably similar to SpaceX’s first-generation aluminum fins – raised some (moderately xenophobic) ire in the space community, with people falling back on the stereotype of the perceived willingness of Chinese people to flagrantly ‘copy’ ideas.
- Both the stereotype and the grid fin-stoked ire are arguably undeserved. SpaceX did not invent grid fins, nor did it invent the concept of using grid fins to guide suborbital projectiles.
- In fact, CEO Elon Musk would almost certainly be happy to see someone – anyone! – blatantly copy SpaceX’s approach to reusability. A blatant copy, while not exactly worthy of pride, is still a major improvement over companies sticking their heads in the sand and tacitly choosing insolvency and commercial irrelevance rather than admit that they were wrong and SpaceX was right.
-
- (Pauline Acalin – Teslarati)
- According to CASC, this mission’s grid fins were included to flight-test their ability to more carefully guide the booster’s return to Earth. China infamously takes a… lax… approach to range safety, allowing spent boosters and fairings to haphazardly crash into inhabited areas, often containing remnants of their sometimes toxic propellant.
- Indeed, this particular booster did appear to crash in an uninhabited valley, be it thanks to those experimental grid fins or pure chance
- However, aside from not crashing large objects in populated areas, CASC and China have plans to develop a Long March 6 rocket with a reusable booster that will use the same recovery methods as Falcon 9. That rocket could fly as early as 2021 and July 26th’s grid fin test is an obvious sign that work is ongoing.
- If China manages to develop and launch a partially reusable rocket by 2021, they will be miles (and years) ahead of its space agency peers (NASA, ESA, CNES) and companies like ULA and Arianespace.
Thanks for being a Teslarati Reader! Stay tuned for next week’s issue of DeepSpace.
– Eric
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
