News
LaunchPad: Falcon Heavy ready to go for commercial launch debut
This is a free preview of LaunchPad, one of Teslarati’s member-only launch briefing newsletters. Before each SpaceX launch, I’ll give you an inside look of what to expect and share amazing photos and on-the-ground details after the launch. Become a member today receive all of Teslarati’s newsletters.
SpaceX launch technicians and engineers have officially completed the integration and static fire testing of the second Falcon Heavy rocket ever, nearing the end of preflight preparations for the vehicle’s critical commercial launch debut.
Carrying the commercial communications satellite Arabsat 6A, the rocket will be tasked with placing the massive spacecraft into a high-energy geostationary orbit. After a combination of hurdles and conflicting priorities conspired to delay Arabsat 6A’s launch from mid-2018 to February, March, and eventually, April of 2019, both the spacecraft and rocket are nearly ready to go. If all goes as planned, SpaceX will also complete the first successful launch and near-simultaneous landings of three independent rocket boosters, preparing two of the three boosters for reuse on a launch that could happen as early as June 2019.
When: 6:35 pm EDT, 22:35 UTC (click for your time), April 10th
What: Arabsat 6A, communications satellite, ~6000 kg (13,200 lb)
Where: Pad 39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Boosters: B1052.1, B1053.1, B1055.1
Recovery: Yes; drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) & LZ-1/2
Weather: 80% GO, 4/10
Falcon 9 Block 5, meet Falcon Heavy
- With this Falcon Heavy, SpaceX has effectively built – once again – a center stage that is nearly its own rocket, much like the tortured development of the first vehicle’s center stage can be blamed for a lot of its years of delays.
- Based on Falcon 9 V1.2’s Block 3 iteration, Falcon Heavy Flight 1’s center core was effectively outdated a year before it launched, and Falcon 9 Block 5 debuted just three months after its first and last launch.
- Combined with the center core’s untimely demise when it crashed into the Atlantic after running out of engine starter, the now 14 months separating Flight 1 and Flight 2 of Falcon Heavy can be explained by the rocket’s delayed path to the launch site.
- By the time the first Falcon Heavy’s main components were all present in at the launch site, SpaceX was already building Block 5 rockets and was as few as three months away from completely transitioning its Hawthorne, CA factory to Block 5.
- Due to the extensive changes in production incorporated into Block 5, this was effectively a no-turning-back deal where the cost of transitioning back was simply a non-starter.
- By the time Falcon Heavy had launched, and its center core had smashed itself to pieces on the Atlantic Ocean surface, it was far too late to begin producing a replacement copy. One step further, the process of ramping up Block 5 production had been slowed significantly by the drastic changes made across the board, taking SpaceX to the edge of production-related launch delays over the course of 2018.
- Put simply, building two side boosters and a relatively boutique Falcon Heavy center core – all three of which would be inextricably tied together for the foreseeable future – was not a practical option when three separate Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters could instead support 6-12+ launches over a period of six or so months.
(Hopefully) the first of many
- In the nominal event that SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy launch is an unqualified success, it’s entirely possible that the doors to new markets could be opened as the world and its many spacefaring customers begin to contemplate the existence of an affordable super-heavy-lift launch vehicle – the first of its kind.
- On the outside, Falcon Heavy can begin to look like a bit of a boondoggle from a business perspective. It will have probably cost no less than $750M-$1B to develop, including the Block 5 modifications needed, and likely brought in less than $100M in gross revenue. It’s a black hole that SpaceX currently dumps huge volumes of cash into, in other words.
- However, this sort of observation is far too pessimistic and gives SpaceX far too little credit after some additional careful analysis. As of today, SpaceX has six public launch contracts for FH, two of which are from the USAF/NRO and likely valued around $130M-$150M.
- Purely commercial contracts for Falcon Heavy will probably be closer to $90M-100M, more than competitive with rockets like Atlas 5, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and other future vehicles like ULA’s Vulcan.
- Within ~12 months, the USAF will likely have awarded 10-16 additional launch contracts to some combo of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy as part of the latest EELV (now NSSL) acquisition phase. Assuming SpaceX is one of the two providers chosen, Falcon Heavy could receive numerous additional contracts for heavy military satellites.
- Additionally, NASA is now seriously considering Falcon Heavy for the launch of flagship missions like Europa Clipper and (maybe, maybe not) even Orion missions to the Moon.
- Falcon Heavy could also be the only vehicle in the world with the performance needed for a number of other missions that could arise from the Lunar Gateway, including launching actual segments of the space station and launching deep space cargo missions resupply said Gateway.
- Only ULA’s Delta IV Heavy can marginally compete with Falcon Heavy’s performance, but it typically costs no less than $300M per launch, a 2-3X surcharge over SpaceX’s offering. Due to the utter and complete lack of competition from both a price and performance perspective, SpaceX could essentially have the heavy life market cornered for something like 48-60+ months.
- Offering a unique product with potentially high demand and no real alternative, SpaceX would not be out of place to raise its profit margins significantly, helping to rapidly pay back the capital investment it put into Falcon Heavy’s extended development.
- Regardless, the future of Falcon Heavy has every right to be even more thrilling and diverse than the already impressive Falcon 9.
You can watch Falcon Heavy’s commercial launch debut live here on April 10th at 6:35 pm EDT (22:35 UTC). We’ll see you after the launch at LandingZone with exclusive photos and on-the-ground details of Falcon Heavy’s center core recovery.
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
