SpaceX has completed its 60th operational Starlink satellite launch after a rare string of scrubs.
Flying for the 6th time just 66 days after its 5th launch, Falcon 9 booster B1067 lifted off with 54 Starlink satellites on SpaceX’s Starlink 4-34 mission at 8:18 pm EDT, Sunday, September 18th. Five days prior, after unknown issues triggered a delay from a planned September 11th launch attempt, SpaceX attempted to launch the mission for the first time on September 13th.
About an hour before liftoff, lightning conditions forced the company to call off the attempt. On September 14th, also about an hour before liftoff, weather forced SpaceX to call off the second attempt. On September 15th, the third attempt was aborted (by weather) just 29 seconds before liftoff, followed by a fourth weather-related scrub about a minute before liftoff on September 16th. Only after a fifth attempt on September 17th was preempted by a delay to September 18th did SpaceX finally find a gap between Florida’s summer weather.
With dozens of Starlink launches beginning to blur together and SpaceX’s Falcon 9 continuing a relentless and potentially record-breaking streak of successes at a pace that could soon make it the fastest launching rocket in history, it’s hard to be surprised that Starlink 4-34 was completed without issue. Falcon 9 B1067 ascended under power for about three minutes, sent the rest of the rocket on the way to orbit, coasted into space, and returned to Earth with SpaceX’s 68th consecutively successful booster landing.
Falcon 9’s underappreciated upper stage continued into an orbit around 300 kilometers (~190 mi) up, spun itself up end over end, and deployed a 16.7-ton (~36,900 lb) stack of 54 Starlink V1.5 satellites all at once. Following the quick deployment, the rocket’s pair of reusable fairing halves were likely still 10 or 20 minutes away from touching down on the Atlantic Ocean under their GPS-guided parafoils, where they will eventually be scooped out of the water for future flights.
Starlink 4-34 was SpaceX’s 42nd launch of 2022, maintaining an average of one launch every 6.2 days since the year began. It leaves more than 3000 working Starlink satellites in Earth orbit, likely meaning that a majority of all working satellites are owned and operated by SpaceX less than three full years after the company began operational launches.
Up next, Next Spaceflight and Spaceflight Now report that SpaceX has two more Starlink launches (4-35 and 4-36) tentatively scheduled before the end of September. As of September 15th, both reported that those missions were working towards launches on September 19th and September 26th – nothing unusual for SpaceX in 2022.
What was unusual, however, was both unofficial manifests’ agreement that SpaceX intended to use the same pad – Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s LC-40 – to launch Starlink 4-34, 4-35, and 4-36. Even assuming that those schedules were predicated upon Starlink 4-34 launching on September 13th, before all of its weather delays, SpaceX would have had to break LC-40’s 7.7-day turnaround record by around ~25% and complete a second launch just seven days after that.
Starlink 4-34’s delays have thrown that plan into question, but the fact that SpaceX thought it was possible in the first place suggests that the company has plans to squeeze even more performance out of LC-40 – already its most important pad from the perspective of launch cadence. Launch photographer Ben Cooper now reports that Starlink 4-36 could launch in late September or October. If it slips into October, SpaceX has a rapid-fire pair of customer satellite launches scheduled on October 5th and 13th that will probably take precedent over any internal Starlink mission.
With only 16 days left before LC-40’s next commercial launch and NASA’s Crew-5 launch taking over SpaceX’s other East Coast pad until October 3rd, SpaceX would have to launch Starlink 4-35 and 4-36 just four or five days apart (and one just 4-5 days after Starlink 4-34) to avoid delaying one of the Starlink missions well into October, avoid unnecessarily delaying commercial launches for paying customers, and ensure that those customers don’t have abruptly agree to be commercial guinea pigs for extra quick LC-40 turnarounds.
Starlink 4-35 is now tentatively scheduled for September 23rd, making a Starlink 4-36 delay more likely but not fully ruling out a launch attempt before the end of the month.
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
