News
Rocket Lab Electron returns to flight as FAA approves launches from the US
Rocket Lab, the space systems company and small satellite launcher, returned to active launch status recently with the successful fourteenth launch of its Electron rocket. The “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical” mission marked Rocket Lab’s comeback after suffering an in-flight anomaly during Electron’s thirteenth flight on July 4, 2020.
Just nine weeks after the conclusion of the incident investigation, following its successful return to flight, Rocket Lab has announced that it has been granted a five-year Launch Operator License – permission to launch multiple missions a year – by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its new Launch Complex 2 in Virginia.
“I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical,” Electron’s Return to Flight
The thirteenth flight of Electron “Pics or It Didn’t Happen” on July 4 began with a flawless launch from Launch Complex – 1A (LC-1A) in Mahia, New Zealand. During the flight of the second stage, there were indications that Electron had experienced a critical malfunction. Telemetry data confirmed that Electron had encountered an in-flight anomaly that ultimately resulted in the company’s first mission failure and loss of seven customer payloads.
The root cause of the anomaly was quickly tracked down to a single bad electrical connection on the second stage. Less than a month after the incident, Rocket Lab announced that it was able to reconstruct what occurred, make the necessary corrective measures, and ready to return Electron to flight.
Just a few short weeks later on August 24, Electron was on pad LC-1A in New Zealand for pre-flight testing ahead of its fourteenth – and return to flight – mission “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical.” The dedicated mission for San Francisco-based information services company, Capella Space, carried a single microsatellite called “Sequoia” to a circular orbit at approximately 500km.
According to a statement provided by Rocket Lab, Sequoia is the “first synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite to deliver publicly available data from a mid-inclination orbit over the U.S., Middle East, Korea, Japan, Europe, South East Asia, and Africa.” Sequoia is the first microsatellite in a constellation series that Capella Space says will “provide insights and data that can be used for security, agricultural and infrastructure monitoring, as well as disaster response and recovery.”
The success of “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Optical” marks the thirteenth successful mission and the deployment of Sequoia makes a total of 54 satellites delivered to orbit since Rocket Lab began operation in 2017. Rocket Lab founder and chief executive officer, Peter Beck, congratulated Capella Space on the successful deployment of its first microsatellite and celebrated the entire Rocket Lab team stating that “I’m also immensely proud of the team, their hard work, and dedication in returning Electron to the pad safely and quickly as we get back to frequent launches with an even more reliable launch vehicle for our small satellite customers.”
FAA certifies Electron launches from the US
In addition to LC-1A in New Zealand, Rocket Lab broke ground on a second launchpad located in the United States in late 2018. The launchpad was declared complete in December 2019.
Although operational, Launch Complex 2 located at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport within NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island in Virginia still had a few milestones to achieve ahead of the first scheduled launch. In April 2020 an Electron rocket arrived at the pad for integrated systems tests. Two major hurdles left to clear ahead of launching an Electron from LC-2 was receiving a launch operator license from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and receiving NASA certification of the Electron’s Autonomous Flight Termination System (AFTS).
On Tuesday, September 1, Rocket Lab announced that it had received a new 5-year Launch Operator License from the FAA. The license permits California-based launcher and space systems company to launch the Electron rocket from LC-2 multiple times a year without applying for a new license with every launch. This in addition to the Launch Complex 1 license means that Rocket Lab is now licensed to support up to 130 flights of Electron per year.
In addition, LC-1 is expected to expand and bring a second launchpad online, launch complex – 1B, sometime before the end of the year. Beck said, “Having FAA Launch Operator Licenses for missions from both Rocket Lab launch complexes enables us to provide rapid, responsive launch capability for small satellite operators. With 14 missions already launched from LC-1, Electron is well established as the reliable, flight-proven vehicle of choice for small sat missions spanning national security, science and exploration.”
Launch Complex 2 was specifically designed to support responsive missions for NASA and the United States government. The first mission from LC-2 is slated to lift the microsatellite STP-27RM for the United States Air Force as part of the Space Test Program. In 2021 Electron will send NASA’s CAPSTONE mission to a “Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit” (NRHO) around the Moon in support of NASA’s Artemis program.
Even more news…
On Thursday, September 3, Rocket Lab founder Peter Beck will host a webcast to provide an “exciting update” and discuss “the next chapter” of Rocket Lab. The webcast will go live at 2:00 pm ET (18:00UTC).
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
