News
SpaceX competitor Blue Origin touts 25-reuse future rocket as R&D continues
A spokesperson for Blue Origin, the reusable rocket company funded by Jeff Bezos and one of the only serious prospective SpaceX competitors, reiterated an oft-used claim that its orbital New Glenn rocket has been designed with reusability in mind “from the start” and stated that the vehicle’s booster is expected to fly 25 times, while its BE-4 engines can expect to see as many as 100 reuses.
Ariane Cornell, Blue Origin’s head of business development and strategy, provided her comments as part of a satellite and rocket hardware panel at the Hong Kong-hosted CASBAA 2018 conference, mainly focused on major participants in the Asian satellite broadcasting industry, for which SpaceX has launched a number of satellites with several more soon to come.
Correction from Ariane: New Glenn first stage can do 25 missions, BE-4 engines designed for 100 flights each.
— Caleb Henry (@ChenrySpace) June 25, 2018
While scarcely anything has changed in the last 12 months, that in itself is hugely noteworthy – SpaceX remains almost completely unchallenged in the space launch industry, at least in terms of investing in R&D for the purpose of dramatically decreasing the cost of orbital launches. While they have yet to dramatically cut the customer-side prices of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, it’s all but guaranteed that the sustainable ability to do so is not only already in place but improving day by day. Every flight-proven SpaceX launch completed even before Falcon 9 Block 5’s takeover likely provides as much as tens of millions of dollars for the company to either reinvest or recoup investments in reusability and Falcon Heavy, among other things.
- Blue Origin has had some success with its New Shepard suborbital rocket reuse program, although dramatically different from New Glenn. (NASA)
- Blue Origin’s aspirational future, the highly reusable BE-4 powered New Glenn rocket. (Blue Origin)
- BE-4, an extraordinarily powerful 500k lb thrust methane/oxygen rocket engine, is roughly midway through a ground testing program, likely to reach completion in 2019. (Blue Origin)
- Blue is in the process of constructing an entirely new launch site for New Glenn at Kennedy Space Center, known as LC-36. (Blue Origin)
As of today, Blue Origin is quite simply the only rocket company with demonstrated successes, resources, and commitment to serious operationally-reusable rockets – while Blue has yet to reach orbit, commercial launch stalwarts ULA, Arianespace, and ILS have functionally buried their heads in the sand and either have no plans at all or plan flying even their tepid, disinterested steps into reusable rocket hardware by the mid-2020s at the absolute earliest. SpaceX, on the other hand, has already launched its first purpose-built reusable rocket – Falcon 9 Block 5 – and has two or three more completed boosters either at their launch sites or nearing shipment, with many more being prepared in their Hawthorne, CA factory. In fact, SpaceX’s final non-Block 5 mission is in less than four days (June 29), after which all future launches will be transferred to Block 5 rockets.
All future SpaceX missions will be conducted with highly reusable rocket boosters in the middle of 2018, whereas SpaceX’s current operational competitors are essentially not even trying to field competitive reusable rocket hardware on operational launches before 2024 or 2025. Blue Origin, on the other hand, still appears to be committed to completing the development of its huge, reusable New Glenn rocket, an orbital launch vehicle currently aiming for a debut launch sometime in late 2020. While still late to the start of the SpaceX-fueled reusable launch revolution, commercial launches with reusable hardware beginning as early as 2020-2021 bodes extremely well for Blue’s ability to actually carve out a sturdy segment of the market, while also giving SpaceX at least a decent hint of external motivation to remain competitive.
- China’s reusable rocket goals aim to fly small prototypes as early as 2020, with the ultimate goal of making all Chinese rockets reusable by 2035. (Sina Weibo & Spaceflightfans)
- The scale of BE-4 is demonstrated well in this Kent, WA factory photo. (Blue Origin)
- SpaceX’s first successfully launched and landed Block 5 Falcon 9, May 2018. (Tom Cross)
Aside from Blue Origin and a respectable effort from China, also aiming for initial reusable launch vehicle testing in 2020 (albeit beginning with a conservative – but still orbital – subscale prototype), all other commercial launch competitors are effectively betting their livelihoods on the failures non-traditional launch providers like SpaceX, betting that reusable rockets fail to appreciably lower costs to customers over the better part of the next decade. SpaceX, meanwhile, will begin putting those bets to the test in as few as three weeks.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’
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.






