News
SpaceX launches 52nd Falcon 9 rocket in 52 weeks
SpaceX has completed its 52nd successful Falcon 9 launch in 52 weeks, sustaining an average cadence of one launch per week for a full 12 months.
Simultaneously, the Starlink 4-2 rideshare mission set a new record for Falcon 9 booster reuse, marked SpaceX’s 150th consecutively successful launch, and was one of the most complex commercial launches it has ever performed.
In addition to 34 new Starlink V1.5 satellites that joined almost 3000 other working SpaceX spacecraft in orbit, Starlink 4-2 deployed the company’s largest rideshare payload yet – AST SpaceMobile’s 1.5-ton (~3300 lb) BlueWalker 3 communications satellite.
Falcon 9 lifted off on schedule with the combined 12-ton (~26,500 lb) payload safely secured inside its composite payload fairing at 9:20 pm EDT (01:20 UTC) on Saturday, September 10th. Tasked with lifting the rocket’s expendable upper stage, recoverable fairing, and payload most of the way out of Earth’s atmosphere was Falcon 9 booster B1058, a nine-engine first stage that debuted by launching two NASA astronauts in May 2020.
28 months later, B1058 lifted off with Starlink 4-2 and BlueWalker 3 on its 14th spaceflight and orbital-class launch, breaking Falcon 9’s booster reuse record. The rocket performed no differently than it had every time previously, burning for a bit less than three minutes before deploying the upper stage and returning to Earth. About nine minutes after liftoff, B1058 safely touched down on drone ship A Shortfall Of Gravitas (ASOG), likely setting the booster up to break its own record before the end of 2022. With 13 launches already under their belts, boosters B1051 and B1060 will likely follow B1058 past the same 14-flight milestone in the near future.
Once free from the booster, Falcon 9’s expendable upper stage kicked off SpaceX’s most complex commercial launch ever. Measuring about six minutes long, the first and longest burn brought the second stage and payload into an elliptical orbit a few hundred kilometers above Earth’s surface. A second burn followed about 45 minutes after liftoff, raising the low end of that ellipse to deploy BlueWalker 3 into a circular orbit around 500 kilometers (~310 mi). Using a massive antenna, AST SpaceMobile’s first large satellite prototype will eventually attempt to directly communicate with mobile phones to provide a level of connectivity equivalent to 5G/LTE – all from space.
Once free of its rideshare payload, the focus shifted to Starlink. In theory, SpaceX could have taken the easy way out and significantly simplified the mission by deploying all 34 satellites at the same altitude as BlueWalker 3, simultaneously allowing them to reach their operational 540-kilometer (~336 mi) orbits in days instead of months. Instead, SpaceX pursued an exceptionally complex mission requiring five burns from Falcon 9’s upper stage.
After deploying BlueWalker 3, Falcon 9 S2 lowered one end of its orbit at around T+67 minutes, followed by a fourth burn to lower the other end almost two hours after liftoff. The upper stage then spun up end over end and eventually released all 34 Starlink satellites at an altitude of ~335 kilometers (~208 mi), where debris and faulty satellites will take days – rather than years – to reenter Earth’s atmosphere and burn up.
While SpaceX doesn’t confirm post-payload operations, Falcon 9 S2 was also scheduled to perform a fifth and final burn to quickly deorbit itself, ensuring that the mission only produced five pieces of benign debris. At their very low orbits, those five pieces (four ‘tensioning rods’ and the BlueWalker 3 payload adapter) will pose next to no threat to other spacecraft or rockets and should reenter within a few weeks.
Starlink 4-2 was SpaceX’s 52nd successful Falcon 9 launch since September 14th, 2021, meaning that the company has technically already achieved CEO Elon Musk’s goal of 52 launches in one year – albeit not a calendar year. Perhaps even more impressive, the mission was SpaceX’s 150th consecutively successful Falcon launch. No other single rocket (Falcon 9) or rocket family (Falcon) has launched more times in a row without failure.
Finally, Starlink 4-2 was SpaceX’s 42nd launch of 2022. If the company continues its average cadence over the last three months, it could end 2022 having completed more than 60 Falcon launches in one calendar year.
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
