News
SpaceX Falcon 9 doubleheader still on track after fiery ULA launch abort
As previously reported by Teslarati, SpaceX announced intentions to launch two Falcon 9 missions from two Florida launchpads on Sunday, August 30th. However, the ambitious goal was left in limbo.
The record-breaking doubleheader was believed to hinge upon the Saturday morning launch of a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV Heavy rocket with a classified spy satellite. However, that is apparently no longer the case.
Instead of launching on time, ULA’s infrequently-flown heavy-lift rocket was hit by 72 hours of delays to rectify minor pad hardware bugs. Around 2 am EDT (UTC-4) on August 29th, Delta IV Heavy made it just seconds away from liftoff before the rocket’s autonomous flight computer detected an anomaly with pad hardware and aborted the launch. As a result, the three cores’ three Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-68A engines were forced to shut down after ignition – an uncommon Delta IV launch abort scenario that has historically required at least a week of work to recycle for another launch attempt.
ULA ultimately determined that it was not possible to recycle the countdown for another attempt although enough time remained in the launch window to do so. The launch vehicle was safed and a scrub was announced.
In a statement provided by ULA confirmed that the early shutdown was “due to an unexpected condition during the terminal count at approximately three seconds before liftoff.” ULA also confirmed that “the required recycle time prior to the next launch attempt is seven days minimum.”
ULA has to fly before SpaceX, right?
With a minimum of seven days required to recycle the ULA Delta IV Heavy for another launch attempt, it was unclear what that meant for the fate of the SpaceX SAOCOM-1B mission.
It was previously understood that in order for SpaceX to launch the SAOCOM-1B mission from nearby Space Launch Complex-40 (SLC-40), the ULA Delta IV Heavy would have to successfully launch first. The southern polar launch trajectory of the SAOCOM-1B’s mission is one that hasn’t been flown from Cape Canaveral, FL in nearly six decades. This particular flightpath includes launch hazard zones that inch ever so close to the launchpad of the Delta IV Heavy, which is currently still on its launchpad stacked with a classified payload for the U.S. government.
It was assumed that the Falcon 9 would suffer the same minimum delay of seven days, if not longer. However, on Saturday afternoon, August 29 a SpaceX media representative confirmed that the company was still targeting the historic double header launches on Sunday, August 30.
Double the launches, double the recoveries
If SpaceX can pull it off, Sunday is set to be a stellar day for Falcon 9 launches and landings. The SAOCOM-1B mission will feature a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) landing attempt of the expended Falcon 9 booster while the Starlink Falcon 9 booster is expected to land aboard the autonomous droneship “Of Course I Still Love You” currently stationed off the coast of South Carolina.
In an unusual move, SpaceX split up the fairing catching vessels. Initially, both vessels left Port Canaveral and headed south to a catch zone located between The Bahamas and Cuba in an attempt to catch both fairing halves of the SAOCOM-1B mission. Then, GO Ms.Tree did an about-turn and met up with the booster recovery vessels off the coast of South Carolina.
At the time of publishing, the two Sunday Falcon 9 launches are expected to occur just nine hours apart. The Starlink V1.0-L11 mission is slated to occur at 10:12am ET (1412 UTC) from Launch Complex 39-A at Kennedy Space Center while the SAOCOM-1B mission is set to launch at 7:18pm ET (2318 UTC) from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. As usual, SpaceX will host official launch webcasts live, typically beginning around 15 minutes before liftoff.
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
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
