News
SpaceX readies 4th Falcon 9 booster for 10th launch and landing [webcast]
Update: SpaceX has delayed Starlink 4-6 and Falcon 9 B1060’s tenth launch and landing to a backup window scheduled no earlier than (NET) 9:02 pm EST, Tuesday, January 18th (02:04 UTC 19 Jan).
Initially aiming for January 17th, SpaceX pushed the mission to 7:04 pm EST, January 18th for “more favorable weather conditions for liftoff and booster recovery.” A backup window two hours later on the same day was likely selected for similar reasons. Tune in around 8:45 pm EST (01:45 UTC) to watch Falcon 9 B1060’s tenth launch and landing attempt live.
Four days after Falcon 9 B1058 became the third SpaceX booster to complete ten orbital-class launches, the company is set to repeat the feat a fourth time.
Unofficially revealed by airspace and maritime safety alerts on January 12th, SpaceX has confirmed plans to launch Starlink 4-6 – another batch of 49 laser-linked V1.5 satellites – no earlier than (NET) 7:26 pm EST, Monday, January 17th (00:26 UTC 18 Jan) from Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A. The same pad supported an identical launch (Starlink 4-5) on January 6th, requiring a brisk 11-day turnaround for a pad that’s all-time record is two Falcon launches in 10 days.
While technically “just” another Starlink launch, the mission will mark the first time two Falcon 9 boosters have launched for the tenth time back to back. On January 13th, Falcon 9 B1058 helped deliver 105 small rideshare satellites to orbit, completing its tenth successful launch and landing in the process. While there are only two other ten-flight boosters to compare against, B1058 crossed the milestone more than a third faster than either of its siblings, launching ten times in 19 months or once every ~59 days for the duration of its life.
When Falcon 9 B1060 lifts off with Starlink 4-6 on January 17th, 2022, it will do so in 18 months (~81 weeks), beating B1058’s days-old record (19 months or ~85 weeks) by about a month. Though there are several younger, less-flown boosters in SpaceX’s current Falcon fleet, none of them appear to be on track to more than marginally beat or match the records about to be set by B1058 and B1060. Based on SpaceX’s twice-achieved 27-day Falcon 9 turnaround record, it might technically be possible for the same booster to complete 10 launches in as few as 270 days (~39 weeks), employees have described those record turnarounds as “a mad rush” – probably not a sustainable pace for the current workforce, in other words.
Nonetheless, even if evidence continues to grow that the current iteration of Falcon Block 5 boosters are unlikely to average more than one launch every 50-60 days over their lives, SpaceX could still theoretically achieve an eyewatering launch cadence. For example, if SpaceX’s current fleet of nine operational Falcon boosters (including one converted Falcon Heavy core) can each achieve an average of one launch every 60 days starting now, SpaceX could feasibly launch more than once per week or ~54 times per year. If SpaceX also converts Falcon Heavy core B1053 into a Falcon 9, damaged Falcon 9 booster B1069 is able to enter the fleet, and the average turnaround time drops to 50 days, that 11-booster fleet could support up to 80 launches per year.
SpaceX’s three Falcon launch pads could theoretically support up to 90 launches per year if every single turnaround was as fast as each pad’s all-time record and no extended downtime was ever needed. In other words, in spite of just how far the Falcon Block 5 design appears to be from CEO Elon Musk’s long-stated dream of daily reuse, a fleet of just 15 Block 5 boosters averaging a conservative 60 days per launch could achieve an annual cadence that would force SpaceX to upgrade its launch pads to go any higher.
With Starship on the horizon, though, it’s no longer clear that SpaceX actually wants to push the Falcon family’s envelope to the point that another round of significant vehicle or pad upgrades are required. Unless Starship suffers catastrophic setbacks causing years of delays, it’s more likely than not that the Falcon family will peak around 60 launches per year (still incredibly impressive) before its likely retirement.
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
