News
SpaceX director says six Crew Dragon launches per year is a sustainable goal
A senior manager says that SpaceX could sustainably launch six or more Crew Dragons per year if the market for private missions grows large enough to demand it.
Benji Reed, Senior Director of Human Spaceflight Programs, offered his thoughts on the matter in a press conference following SpaceX’s successfully recovery of Crew Dragon and four private Axiom-1 astronauts from the Gulf of Mexico, marking the end of the first all-private mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Asked what kind of launch cadence SpaceX believes it could handle going forward, Reed stated that he “would love to see…half a dozen crew flights…or more” per year and believes that “SpaceX can sustain that [pace] if there’s a market for it.”
The question is an important one after a SpaceX executive confirmed to Reuters earlier this year that the company has already ended production of Crew Dragon after building just a handful of reusable capsules. With that fleet of four spacecraft, it hasn’t been clear how many crewed missions SpaceX can – or thinks it can – launch each year. To some extent, it’s long been expected that SpaceX would try to replace both Falcon rockets and Dragon spacecraft with Starship as soon as the next-generation fully-reusable rocket is ready.
However, without major redesigns or a new and heavily modified variant of the rocket’s upper stage, it’s difficult to imagine NASA transitioning its International Space Station astronaut launches from Dragon to Starship anytime soon. Even though Starship could feasibly revolutionize spaceflight and NASA has already contracted with SpaceX to build a version of the rocket to land NASA astronauts on the Moon, the one thing it’s hard to imagine the space agency ever compromising on is safety. Crew Dragon has a built-in launch escape system that allows the capsule to almost instantly whisk astronauts away from a failing rocket at any point before or during a launch.
Starship has no such escape system and SpaceX has no apparent plans to develop a variant of the crew-carrying ship with a comparable abort system. Because the Starship rocket’s second stage is the orbital spacecraft, crew cabin, and reentry vehicle, it simply isn’t possible for the current design of the next-generation vehicle to match the theoretical safety of Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon. CEO Elon Musk has discussed increasing the number of engines on Starship to allow it to escape from a failing booster but that would leave astronauts with no way to escape from the upper stage itself.
On top of Dragon’s fundamentally superior safety capabilities, Falcon 9 also has an extraordinary record of 125 consecutively successful launches. If NASA wouldn’t let Dragon launch its astronauts on Falcon 9 without an active escape system, it’s hard to imagine how many consecutive launch successes Starship would need before the agency would even think about retiring Crew Dragon.
This is all to say that SpaceX is likely going to be stuck operating Crew Dragon for the indefinite future as long as it’s too stubborn to develop a true launch escape system for Starship. Even though the recently announced Polaris Program aims to culminate in the “first flight of Starship with humans on board,” it’s likely that most private SpaceX crew launch customers will follow NASA’s lead.
Thankfully, even with four Crew Dragon capsules, it’s likely that SpaceX can manage significantly more than six crewed missions per year if the demand is there and commercial passengers – mirroring NASA – aren’t ready to risk flying on Starship. Already, SpaceX has successfully launched the same Crew Dragon capsule to orbit twice in 137 days. If SpaceX continues flying back-to-back NASA crew transport missions while Boeing’s Starliner inches through qualification, that will tie up two Dragons per year, limiting SpaceX to two launches for NASA and around four to five private astronaut launches per year.
Assuming Starliner finally reaches operational readiness and begins supporting every other NASA crew launch, SpaceX could feasibly launch one NASA mission and seven private missions (lasting up to two weeks each) per year by the end of 2023. Additionally, if SpaceX can improve Crew Dragon turnaround to 120 days, the fleet could support 10 crew launches per year. 90 days? 13 launches per year. Private missions to the ISS would add plenty of schedule constraints, reducing the total number of opportunities, but that’s a minor problem in comparison.
The only lingering technical concern, then, is the longevity of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule fleet. SpaceX and NASA have initially certified each capsule for five missions, but after Crew-4’s April 27th launch, the fleet has already eaten up 7 of the 20 flights that limit permits. Assuming no additional demand for private launches, the remaining 13 ‘certified’ flights might last SpaceX through 2024. Sooner than later, with NASA’s blessing, it will either need to significantly increase the number of missions each capsule is certified to fly, build new capsules, or find a way to transition to Starship.
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
