Connect with us

News

SpaceX Falcon 9 Block 5 booster ends launch #2 with spectacular dawn return

Falcon 9 B1049 returned to Port of Los Angeles after its second successful launch and landing in four months. (Pauline Acalin)

Published

on

SpaceX Falcon 9 booster B1049 has completed its second successful launch and landing with a spectacular dawn return to Port of Los Angeles, where engineers and technicians will work to remove the rocket’s grid fins and landing legs and prepare the vehicle for transport to the company’s Hawthorne, CA factory and refurbishment facilities.

Once post-recovery processing is complete and B1049 is safe and snug inside one of SpaceX’s refurbishment facilities, the booster can be expected to be ready to perform its next (third) orbital-class mission perhaps just 2-3 months from now, whether or not there is a mission that needs its support.

Just ~48 hours after the Block 5 booster’s second successful launch and landing, this time aboard drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) after supporting the historic Iridium-8 mission, JRTI pulled into Port of Los Angeles with Falcon 9 in tow, backlit by a picturesque California sunrise. In September 2018, the same booster (B1049) successfully completed its launch debut from SpaceX’s LC-40 launch pad in Cape Canaveral, Florida before landing safely aboard drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY).

This marks the second time ever that a Falcon 9 booster has launched from both coasts (Cape Canaveral, FL and Vandenberg, CA) and landed on both SpaceX drone ships (JRTI and OCISLY), an event that will likely become increasingly common as the company’s growing fleet of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters become increasingly flexible and interchangeable. It’s also equally possible that – over time – a sort of regional fleet of Falcon 9s will ultimately accumulate at each of SpaceX’s three launch pads, ensuring that there is always a rocket ready and waiting to launch a customer payload with short notice and minimal production or refurbishment-related delays.

Advertisement
-

 

Among many of Falcon 9’s almost sculpture-like qualities, Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin’s photos of the booster’s return exemplify just how reliably unperturbed Block 5 appears after performing multiple orbital-class launches, far from a rocket that traveled to ~90 km (~56 mi) while reaching speeds of 1.9 kilometers per second (6830 km/h, 4300 mph). SpaceX now reliably reuses Falcon 9’s titanium grid fins and landing legs with little to no refurbishment or touching up between launches and should eventually be able to retract the rocket’s legs after recovery, further cutting down on processing and refurbishment times.

Greater reusability, greater reliability?

As of today, it’s unclear how big of a role Falcon 9 Block 5 booster refurbishment has played into several hardware-readiness-related delays to several recent flight-proven Falcon 9 launches (SSO-A, SAOCOM 1A, and Iridium-8), but it is ultimately a fundamental reality of all manufacturing that rushing or ‘expediting’ work will typically hurt product quality and reliability and generally widen the cracks that mistakes can slip through. Interestingly, having a truly large fleet of flight-proven Falcon 9 Block 5 rockets on hand could dramatically improve the overall launch-readiness of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy and minimize chances of processing delays across the board.

SpaceX employees may already be to a point where they can plausible take stock of the company’s already-significant fleet of flight-proven Falcon 9s (B1046-B1049) to decide which booster is closest to launch-readiness before assigning it to a given mission. With four proven boosters on hand as of January 2019, options are fairly limited and regionality is likely to factor heavily into which booster launches which mission – there is no real cushion if problems arise with a given rocket or its preceding launch suffers its own delays. However, once that Falcon fleet grows to something like 10 or 15 booster, SpaceX could conceivably be able to guarantee booster availability regardless of prior launch delays or a given rocket’s condition after landing.

 

This  may well be far less sexy than SpaceX’s ultimate goal of drop-of-the-pin, 24-hour reusability for Falcon and BFR boosters, but the fundamental fact of the matter is that the company may well be able to derive a vast majority of that practice’s value by simply having a large, well-kept fleet of Falcon 9 boosters that are at least moderately reusable. For a hefty chunk of the probable near-term future, a large fleet of rockets each capable of launching every 30-60 days would likely be able to support launch cadences that are currently unprecedented for a single company or rocket (i.e. dozens of launches per year).

Advertisement
-

Time is money, of course, so minimizing the turnaround time of Falcon boosters will ultimately remain a major priority, especially as the prospect of Starlink launches loom.


For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading