News
Rocket Lab aces first Electron rocket launch from US soil
After many delays, Rocket Lab has successfully launched an Electron rocket from US soil for the first time.
The company’s small Electron rocket lifted off at 6 pm EST (23:00 UTC), January 24th, from a pad built at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility. About nine minutes later, the Electron upper stage reached low Earth orbit (LEO) and shut down its Rutherford Vacuum engine. 90 minutes after liftoff, the rocket finished deploying three new Hawkeye 360 Earth observation satellites, marking the successful completion of Rocket Lab’s first American launch.
Rocket Lab’s workhorse rocket is relatively unique. Electron is the only rocket in the world to successfully reach orbit with structures built almost entirely out of carbon fiber composites. It’s also the only orbital-class rocket in the world that uses engines with battery-powered pumps. Electron measures 18 meters (59 ft) tall, 1.2 meters (4 ft) wide, and weighs about 13 tons (~28,500 lbs) at liftoff, making it one of the smallest orbital rockets ever. It sells for about $7.5 million and can launch up to 200 kilograms (440 lb) to a sun-synchronous orbit or 300 kilograms (660 lb) to LEO.
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
Electron is by far the cheapest widely-available option for a dedicated rocket launch. Although a fully-utilized Electron costs more than $25,000 per kilogram, Rocket Lab has found a decent number of customers that find the benefits worth the cost premium. SpaceX currently offers rideshare launch services for just $5,500 per kilogram. But a dedicated Electron launch buys customers white-glove service and control over the exact timing and target orbit, among other perks.
Many companies are developing orbital transfer vehicles (space tugs) to combine the affordable cost of rideshare launches with customized orbits and deployment timing, but rideshare payloads will always have to grapple with inflexible launch timing. SpaceX will not delay a launch carrying 50-100+ other payloads because one satellite is running behind schedule.
Rocket Lab’s history shows that plenty of companies are willing to pay far more for the convenience of a direct launch. Electron’s first launch from US soil was the rocket’s 30th successful launch and 33rd launch since its May 2017 debut. In 2022, Rocket Lab managed to launch eight times in eight months and nine times overall. Had bad winter weather not conspired to delay its first US launch, the company would have broken into the double digits for the first time and likely kept its monthly launch streak alive.
Sisyphean delays
Rocket Lab’s first American launch is no stranger to delays. The company announced plans to build a US launch site in October 2018. At the time, Rocket Lab hoped to launch its first Electron out of Virginia’s NASA Wallops Flight Facility as early as Q3 2019. For a number of reasons, many of which were outside of Rocket Lab’s control, that didn’t happen.
Rocket Lab began constructing its Launch Complex 2 (LC-2) pad in Virginia in February 2019 and finished construction by the start of 2020. At that point, the then-private company stated that LC-2 was on track to host its first Electron rocket launch as early as Q2 2020. In Q2, Rocket Lab even shipped an Electron to Virginia and completed a range of pad shakedown tests, including a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire test.
Rocket Lab isn’t entirely free of fault. However, nearly all of the blame for that delay appears to lie with NASA, who required that Rocket Lab use the agency’s own software for a new kind of “flight termination system.” Rocket Lab had already successfully developed and repeatedly flown its own autonomous flight termination system for use at its New Zealand launch site. AFTS replaces a human-in-the-loop with software that monitors a rocket and decides if it needs to protect populated areas by triggering explosive charges that will destroy the vehicle.
NASA’s software was plagued by years of delays, causing the payload assigned to Electron’s US launch debut to change repeatedly. In 2019, it was supposed to be a Space Test Program (STP) mission for the US Air Force. From 2020 to 2021, it was supposed to be NASA’s CAPSTONE mission to the Moon. Both missions were ultimately launched at Rocket Lab’s primary launch site in New Zealand.
Only in January 2023, almost three years after Rocket Lab was first ready to go, did Electron finally lift off from US soil with a trio of Hawkeye 360 radio surveillance satellites in tow. The mission was the first of Electron launches purchased by Hawkeye 360 to launch 15 satellites. Rocket Lab intends to launch again from LC-2 in the near future and has already shipped a second Electron rocket to Virginia.
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
