News
India could become the fourth country ever to soft-land a spacecraft on the Moon next week
The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is perhaps just a few weeks (maybe days) away from attempting to place the country in the history books, hopefully setting India up to become the fourth nation on Earth – after the Soviet Union, United States, and China – to successfully soft-land on the Moon.
Known as Chandrayaan-2, the mission seeks to simultaneously launch a lunar orbiter, lander, and rover, altogether weighing nearly 3900 kg (8600 lb) at liftoff. If successful, the trio of spacecraft will remain integrated for about two months as the orbiter slowly raises its Earth orbit to eventually intercept and begin orbiting the Moon. Although originally expected to launch on Sunday, July 14th (July 15th local time), a bug with the Indian-built launch vehicle’s upper stage has pushed Chandrayaan-2 outside its original launch window, which ended today (July 16th). Depending on the complexity of the mission profile ISRO is using, the delay should be no more than a few days to a few weeks before the next launch window opens.
Editor’s note: Following ISRO’s July 15th scrub, the Chandrayaan-2 Moon lander mission has been rescheduled for launch no earlier than (NET) 2:43 pm local time, July 22nd (2:13 am PDT/9:13 UTC, July 23rd).
Fourth to the Moon (in one piece)
- All the way back in 1966, the Soviet Union (USSR) became the first to successfully soft-land an uncrewed spacecraft on the Moon with a mission known as Luna-9. Some four months after the momentous achievement, the United States became the second, safely landing Surveyor-1 on the Moon in June 1966.
- At the height of the space race, huge amounts of money was being funneled into these milestones, permitting the companies, institutions, and space agencies building, launching, and operating the individual missions to almost throw hardware at the metaphorical wall until something stuck. With the Soviet space program, this involved 17 failures, two successes, and one partial success in the first 7 years of the Luna initiative, culminating in Luna 9’s successful landing in February 1966.
- The US had three major separate programs known as Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, and Surveyor, the former of which was meant to simply fly past or impact the Moon to acquire detailed photos of its surface. Ranger suffered five consecutive failures and one partial failure before three full successes, while Orbiter was a complete success (5/5) and Surveyor failed only 2 of 7 attempts.
- Ultimately, this little snippet of history is simply meant to emphasize the utterly different approaches of those pathfinder programs relative to modern exploration efforts. In the case of ISRO’s Chandrayaan-2, failure would likely mean several years of delays before the next possible attempt – there is no concurrent (verging on mass-) production of multiple spacecraft like there was with Surveyor and Luna.
- Just shy of 50 years after the back-to-back first and second soft landings of Luna-9 and Surveyor-1, China became the third nation on Earth to successfully soft-land on the Moon with its 2013 Chang’e-3 mission, featuring a lander and rover. This was followed by Chang’e-4 in 2018, which continues to successfully operate 8 months after achieving the first successful soft-landing on the far side of the Moon.
- Finally, just several months ago, private company SpaceIL – supported by Israeli aerospace company IAI – attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to make Israel the fourth country to land on the Moon.
Indian spacecraft, Indian rocket
- This finally brings us to Chandrayaan-2, what can only be described as a continuation of a recent resurgence in interest and serious robotic exploration of the Moon. Once it launches, the mission will take roughly 56 days to get into position for an attempted soft-landing. Prior to landing, the orbiter – in a circular, 100-km (62 mi) lunar orbit – will actively scout the intended landing site with a high-resolution ~0.3m/pixel camera to help the lander avoid any dangerous terrain.
- Once complete, the lander – carrying a tiny, ~27 kg (60 lb) rover – will begin its deorbit and landing maneuvers, hopefully culminating in a successful, gentle landing near the Moon’s South pole.
- Sadly, the Vikram lander and Pragyaan rover have an expected life of just one lunar day after landing, translating to ~14 Earth days or ~340 hours. This is a strong indicator that the Chandrayaan-2 landing component was not designed to survive the ultra-cold and harsh lunar night, also ~14 Earth days long.
- This isn’t much of a surprise, as surviving the lunar night is a whole different challenge that is rarely worth the hardware, effort, and funding required until the first prerequisite – a soft landing on the Moon – has been successfully demonstrated.
- A follow-up mission known as Chandrayaan-2 has already been proposed and would likely permit far lengthier exploration of the lunar south pole if India and launch partner Japan choose to move forward with it.
- Chandrayaan-2 will be launched on an Indian-built Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) Mk III-D2 rocket, the most powerful rocket in India’s arsenal. Although GSLV Mk III weighs significantly more than SpaceX’s
- Falcon 9 when fully fueled (640 metric tons to F9’s 550), the rocket is almost a third less capable to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – 8000 kg to F9’s ~23,000 kg.
- However, thanks to the development of an efficient liquid hydrogen/oxygen (hydrolox) upper stage and engine, the rocket comes into its own when dealing with its namesake – geostationary (i.e. high-altitude) satellite launches. To GTO, GSLV Mk III is reportedly capable of launching at least 4000 kg, almost half of Falcon 9’s expendable performance and almost 75% as much as Falcon 9 with booster landing.
- Even more impressive is the cost: ISRO purchased a block of 10 GSLV Mk III rockets in 2018 for roughly $630M, translating to ~$63M per rocket, nearly equivalent to Falcon 9’s own list price of $62M. This places GSLV Mk III around the same level as Russia’s Proton-M rocket in terms of a cost-to-performance ratio, still second to Falcon 9 in most cases. GSLV Mk III has only launched three times (all successful) since its 2014 debut and Chandrayaan-2 will be its fourth launch.
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
