News
SpaceX's Crew Dragon astronaut launch debut schedule revealed by Elon Musk
On the heels of a brand new animation simulating the spacecraft’s next orbital launch milestone, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has revealed a tentative schedule for Crew Dragon’s astronaut launch debut.
Known as Demo-2, short for Crew Dragon’s second orbital demonstration mission, the launch could make SpaceX the first commercial company in history to send astronauts to space (i.e. orbit), as well as the first private company to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). If things go as planned over the next several months, that should kick off a new era where NASA will routinely rely on SpaceX (and Boeing) to ensure that the US has a continued presence in space.
The International Space Station has been continuously crewed by astronauts since October 31st, 2000, representing nearly two decades that humanity has had an uninterrupted presence in space. Supported by regular NASA Space Shuttle and Russian Soyuz launches that enabled space agencies to safely send astronauts to and from the space station, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner are nearly ready to pick up the torch that NASA and the United States fumbled when the Shuttle was prematurely canceled in 2011.
Over the last five years, SpaceX has been working tirelessly to design, build, and test Crew Dragon – all in the name of ensuring that it will be one of the most reliable and capable human-rated spacecraft ever flown once it begins taking astronauts to and from the ISS. As with almost all human-rated spacecraft in history, Crew Dragon’s development has not been without its hurdles and detours, ranging from challenges with the spacecraft’s parachute recovery systems to a catastrophic capsule explosion during thruster testing.
As a result, SpaceX has put extra effort into optimizing and redesigning Crew Dragon’s many subsystems to ensure that all work exactly as intended. Thankfully, all of Crew Dragon’s development hurdles have occurred during testing specifically designed to reveal such problems, meaning that no humans have been harmed (or killed) over the course of the program. In the history of human spaceflight, it has often been the case that catastrophic spacecraft failure modes are only discovered after operational flights began, resulting in the deaths of numerous astronauts during Soyuz, Space Shuttle, and SpaceShipTwo – as well as three NASA astronauts during Apollo 1 ground testing.
Spaceflight is nevertheless a dangerous endeavor, at least for the time being, so it’s entirely possible that Crew Dragon will ultimately suffer accidents or failures during crewed missions, evidenced most recently by Starliner’s failure to reach the space station during the Boeing’s spacecraft’s first orbital launch. Still, both companies are working hard to ensure that even in the event of a failure, their spacecraft are able to protect their astronaut passengers and safely return them to Earth.
In line with that, SpaceX (unlike Boeing) opted to perform a live In-Flight Abort (IFA) test with Crew Dragon before allowing the spacecraft to begin astronaut launches. Scheduled to launch as early as January 11th, SpaceX will launch a Dragon spacecraft atop Falcon 9 and simulate a rocket failure during the most stressful point of launch. If Crew Dragon can fire up its abort thrusters and whisk its hypothetical passengers to safety, chances are that the spacecraft will be able to do the same at any other point during launch – from before liftoff all the way to orbit.
SpaceX has been developing its first human-rated spacecraft since it began build Cargo Dragon more than a decade ago – all paths for the company have ultimately pointed towards human spaceflight. According to CEO Elon Musk, the Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 launch vehicle assigned to support the company’s inaugural astronaut launch will be in Florida and ready for flight as early as February 2020, a few-month delay compared to the often overly-optimistic executive’s previous Nov/Dec 2019 target.
Although the hardware could be ready to launch three months (or less) from now, Musk believes that the NASA preflight reviews that must follow will likely take “a few more months” – unfortunately likely given that Crew Dragon’s uncrewed launch debut (Demo-1) was likely ready for flight almost two months before NASA finally cleared SpaceX to launch.
Ultimately, as long as Crew Dragon’s IFA test goes well next month, it’s likely that the spacecraft will launch twice in the first half of 2020, potentially making history sometime in the second quarter.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
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
