News
SpaceX Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test gets its first firm launch date
The day after questions arose around the targeted launch date of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test (IFA), SpaceX and NASA have officially set the date for the spacecraft’s next major flight test.
On Friday, December 6th, a NASA Commercial Crew Program blog post confirmed a NET date of Saturday, January 4th, 2020 for the IFA test. The IFA test is one of the most notable final steps to be completed by the Crew Dragon capsule prior to supporting crewed astronaut flight to the International Space Station in 2020 as a part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Following an apparent incorrect statement made during SpaceX’s CRS-19 webcast that identified a February 2020 target date of the IFA test, SpaceX provided re-assurance that teams were very much still working toward a NET December launch date.
A January 4th date falls just short of SpaceX’s December goal but it still comes as little surprise. In addition to this week’s CRS-19 launch, SpaceX aims to support two more launches prior to year’s end – an internal mission to launch 60 more Starlink satellites and the launch of the JCSAT 18/Kacific 1 communications satellite for customers SKY Perfect JSAT Corp. of Japan and Kacific Broadband Satellites of Singapore. While completing four Falcon 9 launches and landings in a period of less than four weeks is certainly possible for SpaceX, it was rather ambitious, especially given that Crew Dragon’s abort test is almost certainly the company’s preeminent priority.
The targeted January launch date now encroaches into the first quarter of 2020, which SpaceX has adamantly stated is also the goal for Crew Dragon’s first NASA astronaut launch, known as Demo-2. With the IFA test now NET January 4th, it will be a major challenge for NASA and SpaceX to turn around and prepare Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 for Demo-2 just 4-12 weeks later. Of note, Boeing is preparing its own Starliner spacecraft for an uncrewed launch test NET December 20th and has also claimed that it wants to launch a crewed flight test (CFT, akin to SpaceX Demo-2) as early as February 2020, same as SpaceX.
It’s extremely unlikely that NASA will be able to preserve both of those schedules given the Commercial Crew Program’s fixed workforce and the vast quantity of paperwork it must complete before the agency can give the go-ahead for SpaceX and Boeing astronaut launches.
Unsurprisingly, the blog post confirmed that the IFA test would launch from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A). Pad 39A is the same facility that previously supported Crew Dragon’s March 2019 Demo-1 launch debut and is the only pad SpaceX intends to launch Crew Dragon from.
Interestingly, Pad 39A is also an active construction site – SpaceX is in the midst of building a new launch mount and modifying existing facilities to support future launches of SpaceX’s next-generation Starship vehicle. Construction has been underway for a few months and is situated directly beside Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy’s exiting launch mount.
Although that construction will not be allowed to interfere with Crew Dragon launch activity, including the IFA test, construction on the Starship mount will likely be impacted. Construction crews will undoubtedly be expected to evacuate the area surrounding the launchpad during any Falcon 9 static fire test or launch, likely translating to a few days to a few weeks of downtime depending on how SpaceX handles the scheduling.
As 2019 comes to a close, SpaceX remains determined to launch Crew Dragon’s IFA test as quickly as is safely possible. If all goes perfectly during the upcoming abort test, SpaceX says it is seriously targeting Crew Dragon’s biggest test yet – its inaugural astronaut launch – less than two months later in February 2020. It should go without saying that that schedule is incredibly ambitious and highly liable to slip in March or Q2, but if the ambition is there, SpaceX believes it is technically possible.
For now, we have less than a month to wait for Crew Dragon’s next launch milestone and perhaps just 2-3 weeks before the spacecraft and its Falcon 9 rocket roll out to Pad 39A to prepare for a routine static fire test.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.
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
