News
SpaceX set to launch reused Dragon on a new Falcon 9 as NASA requests delay
An electrical fault aboard the International Space Station (ISS) has forced NASA to delay SpaceX’s CRS-17 Cargo Dragon launch from May 1st to May 3rd, giving the station’s crew more time to fix the issues at hand.
A new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster is tasked with launching the spacecraft and completed a static fire test at SpaceX’s LC-40 pad on April 27th. The Cargo Dragon capsule, however, completed its first orbital resupply mission (CRS-12) in September 2017 and has since been refurbished for a second launch. After CRS-17, three launches remain on SpaceX’s CRS1 NASA contract between now and early 2020, after which Dragon 2 (i.e. Crew Dragon) is expected to take over. However, a recent failure during a Crew Dragon test have thrown those plans into question.
Cargo Dragon’s 17th mission
Known as C113, the CRS-12 capsule is the last Dragon 1 manufactured by SpaceX, leaving a fleet of five flight-proven spacecraft for SpaceX to complete the eight remaining ISS resupply missions under its Commercial Resupply Services 1 (CRS1) contract. CRS-17 is the latest installment in SpaceX’s ISS resupply saga and is manifested with ~2500 kg (5500 lb) of cargo.
Along for the ride are NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) and the multi-experiment STP-H6 investigation, two large pieces of hardware that will be delivered to the ISS in Dragon’s unpressurized trunk. After being berthed to the ISS, astronauts will unpack dozens of packages stored inside Cargo Dragon’s cabin. Sometime later, the station’s Canadarm2 will be used to grab OCO-3 and STP-H6 and install each on the outside of the space station, where they will hopefully live long and scientifically fruitful lives.
SpaceX and NASA have assigned a new Falcon 9 Block 5 booster – likely B1056 – to launch CRS-17. To preserve the scene of Crew Dragon C201’s April 20th explosion, the booster will attempt to land around 20 miles (32 km) offshore aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). Originally scheduled for April 25th, CRS-17 was delayed to the 26th, 30th, 1st, and now May 3rd, most of which were requested by NASA for ISS scheduling purposes.
The latest delay – from May 1st to no earlier than (NET) May 3rd – was triggered by an unexpected electrical fault aboard the ISS, cutting the redundancy of its Canadarm2 (SSRMS) control systems from two strings to one. In other words, Canadarm2 – used to ‘grapple’ and berth spacecraft like Cargo Dragon and Cygnus to the station – is now just one electrical fault away from being rendered inoperable. CRS-17 will stay grounded until two-string (i.e. single fault) redundancy is returned to Canadarm2 and additional impacted systems.
In the event that ISS astronauts and NASA ground control are able to repair the electrical systems in a timely fashion, CRS-17 is scheduled to launch at 3:11 am EDT (07:11 UTC) on May 3rd.
In the shadow of Crew Dragon
A recent catastrophic failure of Crew Dragon (i.e. Dragon 2) raises serious questions about SpaceX’s follow-up CRS2 contract, but the nominal plan involves retiring Dragon 1 after CRS-20 and flying all future cargo missions with flight-proven Crew Dragon spacecraft. In the likely event that Crew Dragon C201’s failure delays SpaceX’s CRS2 schedule by several months, there are contingency plans to continue flying refurbished Dragon 1 spacecraft.
However, each Dragon 1 was designed for a maximum of three orbital missions, meaning that SpaceX’s current capsule fleet can support no more than six additional resupply missions before they reach the end of their usable lifespans. SpaceX thus has two potential buffer missions – CRS-21 and CRS-22 – that could theoretically account for up to a year of Dragon 2 delays. Beyond that, additional Dragon 2 delays could create a gap where NASA would have to supply the ISS without SpaceX’s services.
In a best-case scenario, SpaceX and NASA will quickly uncover an unequivocal culprit of C201’s catastrophic explosion, fix the technical and organizational failures that allowed it to happen, and be back on their feet in no time. In reality, it’s likely that the failure will delay future Crew Dragon (and thus Dragon 2) launches by a minimum of 6-12 months. SpaceX will likely need to change up the launch order of its capsules, reassigning DM-2’s Crew Dragon to the in-flight abort (IFA) test and the US Crew Vehicle 1 (USCV-1) Crew Dragon to SpaceX’s first crewed demonstration mission (DM-2). After such a serious and potentially fatal failure, it’s even possible that NASA will require an additional uncrewed orbital launch before permitting SpaceX to fly astronauts on Crew Dragon.
Given that SpaceX’s nominal CRS2 plan involved lightly modifying and reusing Dragon 2s after crewed missions, the future (and schedule) of the company’s Cargo and Crew contracts are intimately intertwined. With any luck, SpaceX and NASA will be able to solve the technical, organizational, and logistical problems now facing them and ensure a stable future for Dragon 2. In the meantime, Cargo Dragon’s CRS-17 mission offers SpaceX a chance to partially verify that Cargo Dragon C201’s issues are are relegated to Dragon 2 and Dragon 2 alone.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
