SpaceX has completed its 21st Falcon 9 launch of 2022, continuing an impressive average cadence of more than one launch per week.
After an unexplained 40-minute delay from 6:20 am EDT, former Falcon Heavy booster B1052 lifted off from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A shortly after sunrise at 6:59 am EDT (10:59 UTC) on Wednesday, May 18th. Carrying its second batch of Starlink satellites on its third mission as a Falcon 9 boosters and fifth launch overall, Falcon B1052 performed flawlessly, safely carrying a reused Falcon fairing, expendable upper stage, and stack of 53 Starlink satellites most of the way free of Earth’s atmosphere.
B1052 then separated and coasted back to Earth as Falcon 9’s upper stage continued to orbit. About nine minutes after liftoff, the booster touched down on drone ship A Shortfall of Gravitas (ASOG) and the upper stage reached a safe parking orbit, marking the premature end of SpaceX’s official webcast. Starlink satellite deployment – typically anywhere from 20 to 60 minutes after liftoff – now occurs off-camera, with only a slight vocal confirmation and a tweet from SpaceX to verify the most important part of each mission.
Looking beyond the bounds of calendar years, Starlink 4-18 is SpaceX’s 28th successful launch since November 11th, 2021 – a period of six months and seven days or 27 weeks. In other words, SpaceX is already more than half of the way to demonstrating a sustained cadence of one launch per week over a full 12 months, leaving little doubt that the company has the ability to achieve CEO Elon Musk’s lesser goal of 52 launches in 2022. The company’s launch teams, processing facilities, launch pads, Falcon production, and fleets of reusable boosters and fairings have proven themselves fully capable.
The only remaining uncertainty stems from reliability and unknown unknowns. Even the most reliable rocket in the world is a highly complex system that can still fail in thousands of unique ways. After an impressive streak of 130 consecutively successful launch campaigns, Falcon 9 is by some measures the most reliable launch vehicle still in operation. As early as June 2022, however, Falcon 9 will have an opportunity to set the record for most consecutive successes of any rocket in history when it attempts to launch without fail for the 134th time in a row. For now, Russia’s R-7 or Soyuz family of rockets – which have launched close to 2000 times since 1966 – hold the current record of 133 consecutive successes. Technically, if one considers Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy part of the same family, R-7/Soyuz and Falcon are now tied with records of 133 consecutive successes.
However, the differences between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy far exceed the relatively small differences between the many slight R-7/Soyuz variations. Given that the variants of Falcon 9 rockets that began SpaceX’s current streak of success in January 2017 were significantly different than those flying today, the full R-7/Soyuz family and Falcon 9 are more directly and fairly comparable than they might initially appear.
Regardless, SpaceX will have accomplished an extraordinary feat if Falcon 9 does complete its 134th successful launch in a row sometime next month. But simultaneously, R-7’s 133-launch record serves as a reminder that at one point in history, an entirely different rocket family that had been averaging more than one launch per week for almost a decade still failed after 133 successful launches. Modern airliners serve as another good reminder of the inherent instability of complex artificial mechanisms: even though they are statistically one of the safest forms of mass transit humans have ever created, they still occasionally crash.
To assume any such system has become immune to failure after a number of successes is to tempt fate. Nonetheless, with the qualification that there are no guarantees, SpaceX’s performance over the last five years significantly raises confidence in the company’s ability to continue executing and completing orbital launches at a rapid pace throughout 2022 (and beyond) without failure.
Beyond Starlink 4-18, SpaceX is scheduled to launch its own Transporter-5 rideshare mission as early as May 25th, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-25 space station supply mission on June 7th, Egypt’s Nilesat-301 communications satellite on June 10th, and a number of other unspecified commercial launches and Starlink missions in June and July.
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
