News
NASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.
Incredibly, over the course his fascinating hour-long prelude, Bridenstine effectively mentioned NASA’s own SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft – under development for the last decade at a cost of at least several tens of billions of dollars – a total of one time each. Instead, heavily emphasizing the absolute necessity that NASA’s next major human exploration project be sustainable, the administrator spoke at length about the foundational roles that international and domestic space agencies and private companies will need to take on in order to make NASA’s on-paper return to the Moon both real, successful, and useful.
Aside from his arguably brave (but spot-on) decision to all but ignore Boeing and Northrop Grumman’s SLS rocket and Lockheed Martin’s Orion spacecraft over the course of an hour spent speaking about the future of NASA’s human exploration of the Moon and on spaceflight more generally, Bridenstine had nothing but praise for recent successes in the American aerospace industry.
Most notably, he spoke about his belief – at least partially stemming from an executive order requiring it – that the only way NASA can seriously succeed and continue to lead the world in the task of human space exploration is to put an extreme focus on sustainability. Judging from his comments on the matter, the new NASA/Federal buzzword of choice is just a different way to describe hardware reusability, although it certainly leaves wiggle room for more than simply avoiding expendable rocket hardware.
“It’s on me to figure out how to [return to the Moon] sustainably. … And this time, when we go, we’re gonna go to stay. So how do we do go sustainably? Well, [we take] advantage of capabilities that didn’t exist in this country even five or ten years ago. We have commercial companies that can do things that weren’t possible even just a few years ago … to help develop this sustainable [Moon exploration] architecture.” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018
While it might not look like much (aside from a “no duh” statement) to anyone unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations of NASA bureaucracy and politicking, this quote – directed at an audience of senior NASA scientists and managers and independent experts – is absolutely extraordinary in the context of NASA’s history and the formulaic eggshells NASA administrators have traditionally been forced to walk on when discussing American rocketry.
Not only is SLS/Orion utterly and conspicuously absent in a response to the “how” of starting a new wave of lunar exploration, but Bridenstine also almost explicitly names Blue Origin and SpaceX as torchbearers of the sort of exceptional technological innovation that might revolutionize humanity’s relationship with space. By referring specifically to “commercial companies that can do things that weren’t possible even just a few years ago”, the only obvious answers in the context of serious human exploration on and around the Moon are Blue Origin and SpaceX, both of which managed their first commercial rocket landings in late 2015.
Bridenstine went even further still, noting that NASA will need not just reusable rockets for this sustainable lunar exploration, but also reusable orbital tugboats (space tugs) to sustainably ferry both humans and cargo to and from Earth and the Moon and reusable lunar landers capable of many trips back and forth from space stations orbiting the moon. At one point, he even used SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s (in)famous and well-worn analogy of commercial airlines to emphasize the insanity of not using reusable rockets:
“We have reusable rockets [now]… Imagine if you flew here across the country to [NASA Ames] in a 737 and when the mission was over, you threw the airplane away. How many of you would have flown here?” – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, 08/29/2018
At today's NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, Administrator Jim Bridenstine says the next hop to the moon is going to be sustainable – and will require reusable spaceflight hardware. Uses the same airplane analogy @ElonMusk does when it comes to explaining advantages.
— Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) August 29, 2018
Reusable rockets lead the charge
It may be generous to include Blue Origin side by side with SpaceX, given the fact that its New Shepard rocket is extremely small and very suborbital, but the company does have eyes specifically set lunar landers and outposts (a project called Blue Moon) and is developing a large and reusable orbital-class rocket (New Glenn) set to debut in the early 2020s.
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
-
- We’re not here just yet, but SpaceX is pushing hard to build BFR and get humanity to Mars as quickly as practicable. (SpaceX)
-
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
-
- Blue Origin’s Blue Moon concept, set to begin experimental lunar landings as early as 2022 or 2023. (Blue Origin)
SpaceX, while focused on Mars colonization, has also expressed a willingness to participate in any sort of lunar exploration that NASA or other international space agencies might have interest in. Currently in the middle of developing its own massive and fully reusable rocket, known as the Big F_____ Rocket (BFR), SpaceX nevertheless already has a flight-tested, highly successfully, and unbeatably cost-effective family of reusable Falcon rockets capable of affordably launching significant mass to the Moon. In fact, both NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are already seriously considering SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy as the launch vehicle of choice for several critical pieces of a Moon-orbiting space station, expected to launch no earlier than the early to mid-2020s.
Whether or not Bridenstine’s incredible and eloquent statements translate into tangible changes to NASA’s long-term strategy, it’s quite simply refreshing to hear a senior NASA executive – let alone the administrator – speak freely and rationally about the reality of what is needed to enable a truly new era of human spaceflight and exploration.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
