News
NASA says SpaceX's Crew Dragon abort test is go for launch on doomed Falcon 9 rocket
NASA has formally given SpaceX permission for Crew Dragon’s second launch – a crucial test flight that should be the last before SpaceX launches NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) for the first time ever.
Known as its In-Flight Abort (IFA) test, Crew Dragon will attempt to escape a Falcon 9 rocket while airborne, a feat that CEO Elon Musk says will almost certainly destroy the rocket in the process. Technically speaking, NASA and SpaceX completed what is known as a Launch Readiness Review (LRR) sometime on Thursday, allowing SpaceX to proceed with launch preparations. By all accounts, Crew Dragon’s IFA test will likely be one of the most spectacular SpaceX launches ever, given that it is all but guaranteed to result in the intentional in-flight failure of a massive Falcon 9 rocket – “destroyed in Dragon fire” according to Musk.
Thanks to a much smoother launch flow compared to Crew Dragon’s Demo-1 orbital launch debut on Falcon 9, SpaceX’s newest Crew Dragon capsule is scheduled to lift off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (KSC LC-39A) as early as 8 am EST (13:00 UTC), Saturday, January 18th. The In-Flight Abort test will likely be one of Crew Dragon’s most challenging hurdles yet but success would be a major boon for the spacecraft’s demonstrated safety. While both Boeing and SpaceX will ultimately ferry NASA astronauts to and from the ISS, only SpaceX chose to prove Crew Dragon’s in-flight abort capabilities in the real world.
Effectively condemned to destruction to support a greater cause after a productive life, Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1046 rolled out to Pad 39A – Crew Dragon mounted atop it – on January 16th after successfully performing its last routine static fire on the 11th. As previously discussed on Teslarati, B1046 is the first Falcon 9 Block 5 booster completed by SpaceX and is thus also the oldest flightworthy rocket in the company’s substantial fleet.
“After becoming the first SpaceX booster to launch three times in December 2018, B1046 spent several months at SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory undergoing inspections and refurbishment. At some point, SpaceX assigned the thrice-flown booster to support Crew Dragon’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test – effectively a death sentence – and shipped the booster to Florida, where it publicly appeared for the first time in months on October 3rd, 2019. Given that four more Falcon 9 boosters have now successfully performed three (or even four) orbital-class launches each, B1046’s now-imminent demise is certainly disappointing but remains extremely pragmatic.”
Teslarati.com — January 15th, 2020
As such, there is arguably no better booster for SpaceX to expend even if its loss is still less satisfying than a successful post-launch landing. In fact, aside from NASA’s prematurely-retired Space Shuttle, the entire history of orbital-class rocketry has effectively operated on the assumption that it’s both normal and necessary for rockets to be almost entirely expendable.
Only by sheer force of will has SpaceX turned that assumption on its head, making the act of expending Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy boosters feel suddenly morose. Even then, the practice of propulsively landing orbital-class boosters is scarcely four years old, while reusing those boosters has been ongoing for less than three years. As such, B1046’s demise should be enjoyed for what it ultimately is: the spectacular retirement of a rocket that has already helped launch three separate payloads to orbit.
Perhaps even more importantly, B1046’s sacrifice should – if things go as planned – also pave the way for Crew Dragon to launch its first NASA astronauts into orbit just a few months from now. For the test to be successful, however, Crew Dragon will have to perform an extremely precise string of maneuvers – the failure of any one of which could potentially lead to the spacecraft’s destruction.
“Traveling as fast as Mach 2.5 (860 m/s) at an altitude of 28 kilometers (17 mi), Crew Dragon will ignite its abort thrusters and attempt to escape, the very act of which will likely hammer the spacecraft’s windward surfaces with an extra dozen or so metric tons (~25,000 lb) of aerodynamic pressure. Crew Dragon C205 could thus find itself traveling almost Mach 3 (more than a kilometer per second) moments after separating from Falcon 9, eventually reaching an apogee of almost 75 km (45 mi), after which it will reenter the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere and have to deploy an array of parachutes to ensure a gentle Atlantic Ocean splashdown.”
Teslarati.com — January 13th, 2020
Unfortunately, Crew Dragon escaping a supersonic Falcon 9 also means that that same Falcon 9 – basically a thin, flexible tube designed to be as light as possible – will meet a supersonic blast of air the moment Dragon’s SuperDraco abort thrusters ignite. A bit like if a hurricane on all kinds of meteorological steroids just sort of punched a soda can for fun, that airstream will almost certainly obliterate Falcon 9’s sacrificial upper stage into a sort of aluminum snow, quickly revealing – and likely then destroying – B1046’s carbon fiber interstage.
The rest of the thrice-flown Falcon 9 booster is also liable to break up after that supersonic punch. In fact, SpaceX engineers are so confident in B1046’s imminent demise that the booster will have neither landing legs or grid fins come launch. In a best-case scenario, if, against all odds, B1046 survives Dragon’s escape, the intact booster will subsequently impact the Atlantic Ocean at terminal velocity and become a nice, artificial reef off the coast of Florida. Stay tuned for updates from Teslarati and photographers Jamie Groh and Richard Angle as Falcon 9 B1046’s demise inches ever closer.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
