News
Rocket Lab spacecraft sends NASA’s CAPSTONE mission to the Moon
Rocket Lab has successfully sent a small NASA spacecraft on its way to the Moon, acing the complex interplanetary launch on its first try.
The public aerospace company’s (mostly) standard two-stage Electron rocket lifted from its New Zealand-based LC-1 pad on June 28th and inserted NASA’s tiny 25-kilogram (~55 lb) “Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment” (CAPSTONE) spacecraft into a low Earth parking orbit without issue. As is fairly typical for most modern Electron launches, a small ‘kick stage’ was included for orbital operations and payload deployment, but CAPSTONE’s kick stage and destination were anything but typical.
Instead of slightly and briefly tweaking a run-of-the-mill low Earth orbit, CAPSTONE’s kick stage was tasked with sending the spacecraft (and itself) all the way from LEO (~300 kilometers) to a lunar transfer orbit with an apoapsis 1.2 million kilometers (~750,000 mi) from Earth.
To accomplish that feat, Electron’s extensively upgraded Lunar Photon kick stage would need to perform more than half a dozen major burns spread out over almost a week, and survive hostile conditions while maintaining total control throughout. Generally speaking, Rocket Lab offers three kick stage variants: a standard low-thrust, low-longevity stage for small orbital adjustments shortly after launch; an upgraded Photon that can either serve as a long-lived satellite or kick stage; and an even more upgraded Photon with large propellant tanks and a more powerful ‘HyperCurie’ engine. With an impressive 3200+ meters per second of delta V, the latter variant could boost significant payloads into higher Earth orbits but is primarily designed for deep space missions – sending payloads beyond Earth orbit.
Rocket Lab wants to launch its own self-funded mission(s) to Venus, delivering one or several small atmospheric probes to help peel back the curtain on the chronically under-explored planet. It also won a 2021 contract to supply a pair of Mars-bound Photon spacecraft buses for NASA’s Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) in 2024, and has multiple orders for simpler Photons that will support slightly more ordinary missions back in Earth orbit.
Lunar Photon’s performance on CAPSTONE bodes extremely well for those ambitious future plans. Within hours of reaching orbit, Photon had begun the orbit-raising process. Over the course of five days, Photon performed six major burns, effectively taking larger and larger ‘steps’ towards the Moon. The spacecraft’s seventh and final burn boosted its apoapsis almost tenfold from ~70,000 to 1.2 million kilometers from Earth, officially placing CAPSTONE on a ballistic lunar trajectory (BLT). While highly efficient, CAPSTONE’s trajectory means it will have to wait until November 2022 to truly enter orbit around the Moon using its own small thrusters.
Once there, “CAPSTONE will help reduce risk for future spacecraft by validating innovative navigation technologies and verifying the dynamics of” lunar near-rectilinear halo orbits (NRHO). The story behind that strange lunar orbit – which will make exploring the Moon’s surface significantly less convenient – is far less glamorous, however. CAPSTONE is essentially a tiny precursor to NASA’s Artemis Program, which the agency claims will help “establish the first long-term presence on the Moon.”
In reality, NASA’s concrete plans currently include a series of short and temporary human landings in the 2020s. While the agency has contracted with SpaceX to develop a potentially revolutionary Starship Moon lander for a single uncrewed and crewed demonstration mission, NASA’s current plan involves using its own Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft as a sort of $4 billion lunar taxi to carry astronauts from Earth’s surface to a Starship lander waiting in lunar orbit. Starship will then carry those astronauts to the surface, spend about a week on the ground, launch them back into lunar orbit, and rendezvous with Orion, which will finally return them to Earth.
Orion’s service module delivers about half as much delta V as NASA’s 50-year-old Apollo Service Module, severely limiting its deep space utility and making safe crewed trips to and from low lunar orbits virtually impossible on its own. Instead of improving the spacecraft’s performance and flexibility by upgrading or replacing the European-built service module (ESM) over the last decade, NASA accepted that Orion would only ever be able to send astronauts to lunar orbits that would always be inconvenient for surface operations.
CAPSTONE’s ultimate purpose, then, is to make sure that spacecraft operate as expected in that compromise orbit – only necessary because Orion can’t reach the lower lunar orbits that are already thoroughly understood.
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
