News
Firefly nears second orbital launch attempt as US forces Ukrainian founder to divest
While the rocket startup he is responsible for resurrecting is preparing for a second orbital launch attempt, a Ukrainian multimillionaire – an entrepreneur, businessman, and the founder of Firefly Aerospace – has once again been forced to take extreme actions by the US government.
Resurrected in 2017 after going bankrupt and ceasing operations the year prior, Firefly is a private launch provider based out of Austin, Texas and founded by Maxim Polyakov and former CEO Tom Markusic. Polyakov has supported the company since its second inception, privately funding the startup with over $200 million earned through success in Ukrainian tech industries. With those contributions, Polyakov was able to singlehandedly resurrect the startup from bankruptcy and continue the development of an even more ambitious Alpha launch vehicle.
For the last two years, though, Polyakov has been under scrutiny from US government officials, who’ve objected to Polyakov – a Ukrainian and UK citizen – having control over the company, with fears that the launch technology developed by the company could make its way back to Ukraine and poses a national security threat.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
In late 2020, Polyakov quietly stepped down as chairman and withdrew from Firefly’s day-to-day operations in the hopes of killing the controversy and giving the startup a better chance at being awarded government contracts. Firefly’s board of directors includes many former U.S government officials, including Deborah Lee James, former secretary of the Air Force, and Robert Cardillo, former director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
However, officials were not satisfied with Polyakov simply stepping down from operations, indicating they want him to have less ownership in the company as well. In November 2021, just two months after Firefly’s inaugural flight test, Polyakov received a letter from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S (CFIUS). This letter expressed these ongoing concerns and asked that he, along with his investment company, Noosphere Venture Partners, sell their stock in Firefly; which amounted to over 50% stake in the company. Because of this request, Firefly halted their operations at Vandenberg Air-force Base.
Before halting launch operations, Firefly claimed to be on track for another Alpha launch as early as January 2022. Firefly’s first launch on September 2nd, 2021 ended in failure around two minutes after liftoff due to a premature engine shutdown. Jason Mello, president of Firefly Space Transportation Services, stated in an interview that fixing the problem responsible for the failure was “fairly easy and straightforward.”
On February 16th, 2022 Polyakov revealed that the United States government had once again gone on the offensive, this time forcing him to fully and permanently cede any involvement in his company. He posted the following statement on Facebook:
Polyakov revealed that he chose to sell his 58% stake in the company to co-founder and CEO Tom Markusic for $1 USD – a selfless act given that selling his stake for nothing all but guarantees he will never recoup a cent of the several hundred million dollars he invested in Firefly.
Previously, Polyakov expressed how excited he was to turn Firefly into a massive aerospace company that both the United States and Ukraine could be proud of and benefit from. “During the Soviet era, Ukraine produced some of the world’s best rocket and engine technology, but much of those inventions have languished in recent years due to lack of investment. The hope was that Firefly could pair its best engineers from the U.S. and Ukraine together to make a fleet of large rockets capable of taking many satellites into orbit and, later on, missions to the moon. Polyakov wanted the U.S. to gain access to Ukrainian expertise, while also finding a way to boost the prospects of Ukrainian aerospace engineers, he has said.” (Bloomberg)
It is speculated that the US government’s sudden and extreme requests came because of concerns over the rising tensions caused by Russia’s increasingly unstable posturing and recurring threats of invasion. Even though Ukraine is friendly with the United States, concerns of conflict with Russia may have increased worries about what might happen to technology developed inside of the country. Ukraine, a sovereign nation, has been forced to increase security along its borders as fear of a Russian invasion grows.
Despite the recent legal and organizational setbacks and drama caused by the US government, Firefly has been doing extremely well from a technical standpoint. The company recently shared a video of the successful static fire testing of both stages of the second Alpha rocket, indicating that it could be ready for flight in the very near future. Even though Polyakov was forced to abandon his aerospace startup, it’s never been more clear that his investment not only saved Firefly but raised the company closer to success than it’s ever been before.
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
