News
NASA and SpaceX probably can’t terraform Mars but that doesn’t matter
In recent weeks, a great deal of exaggerative noise has been spread wide about the supposed impossibility of making the planet Mars more Earth-like and hospitable, a concept known as terraforming. The reality is quite a bit different, especially within the context of any SpaceX or NASA-driven human outposts or colonization attempts.
Triggered by comparatively reasonable research just published by two experienced planetary scientists, much of the hyperbolic media coverage that followed failed to properly frame the true challenges of terraforming the Red Planet.
Keeping the cart behind the horse
Before anything else, it’s critical to take a step back from the idea of terraforming and consider the simpler facts of any human presence on Mars. First, the rationale for a permanent human presence on Mars is largely independent of the environmental conditions on the planet – it’s a huge help to have basic resources available in situ (on site), but the difficulty of surviving in a given non-Earth environment is immaterial to the human desire to both explore and survive.
Assuming we humans really do want to ensure that a subset of ourselves can independently survive any truly global catastrophe on Earth, be it natural or artificial, we will find a way to do so in even the harshest of environments. Living on Mars would be downright luxurious compared to life aboard the International Space Station, thanks largely to ~1/3rd Earth gravity, accessible natural resources to replenish consumables, an Earthlike day and night cycle, considerably more forgiving temperature extremes, and much more.
-
- The ISS orbits just a few hundred miles above the surface of the Earth and hosts an average of six crewmembers at any given moment. (NASA)
-
- The massive BFR spaceship docked to the International Space Station. (SpaceX)
Despite the inhospitable conditions, human presence aboard the ISS has been uninterrupted for nearly 20 years, even though the average stay per crewmember sits around six months. The ISS also has the luxury of a 90 minute day/night cycle, 100% unfiltered sunlight for peak solar panel efficiency, regular resupply missions from Earth, and an escape route in the event of a catastrophic failure. That escape method (Soyuz capsules docked to the station) has not once been used, aside from a handful of instances where crew boarded their escape vehicles as a cautionary measure during unusually risky space debris events, an absolute non-issue on Mars’ surface.
Put simply: if humans can live in orbit for long periods, they can also survive on Mars with at least the same level of difficulty.
Getting there is the hardest part
By taking natural resources available on Mars (namely water and carbon dioxide) and using them to repopulate the planet’s withered atmosphere, it has long been hoped that the Martian surface might be brought much closer to that of Earth, with a thicker atmosphere translating into familiar air pressure and a far warmer climate. In its current state, humans would always need to wear pressure suits and carry oxygen when traveling beyond their Martian habitats, as Mars’ 0.06 bar atmosphere would be approximately as forgiving as the naked vacuum of space and only moderately warmer.
https://twitter.com/_TheSeaning/status/1026194288886071296
Terraforming could potentially alleviate those significant points against the Red Planet, although updated research published this year (2018) appears to indicate otherwise. In reality, Jakosky and Edwards’ study simply emphasizes and adds on to what should already have been wildly apparent – making desolate planets Earthlike is almost invariably going to be an unfathomably difficult (but by no means impossible) challenge, and is most likely beyond the reach of present-day humanity.
-
- Effectively unreleased, an updated Mars colonization video shown in 2018 replaces 2016’s ITS with the newer BFR design. (SpaceX)
-
- Artist David Romax’s jaw-dropping rendition of a BFR burning to Mars orbit. The craft’s various curves and hull complexities will likely rely on cutting-edge composite joining tech to function. (Gravitation Innovation)
-
- A Crew BFS (Big F____ Spaceship) pictured landing on Mars. (SpaceX)
It also happens to be the case that terraforming as a concept is utterly irrelevant without the means to get to and – more importantly – transport respectable amounts of cargo to the bodies one hopes to one day transform. SpaceX’s BFR transportation system is one such acknowledgment of that problem – the issue with Mars colonization or really any basic human presence at all is not surviving after arrival, but instead actually getting there in the first place and doing so without taking decades or bankrupting entire nations.
Extremely affordable transport to, from, and between orbits happen to be the most unequivocal requirement for both a permanent human presence on other planets and have any hope at all of terraforming them, but it just so happens that the latter is 100% irrelevant and impossible without the former. Let’s seriously worry and argue about terraforming Mars once we can do so from the surface of the Red Planet and focus first on getting there.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet (including fairing catcher Mr Steven) check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
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
