News
SpaceX Falcon 9’s next major US Air Force launch slips into early 2020 ahead of busy Q4
According to an August 20th update from the US Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), SpaceX’s next dedicated USAF launch – the third completed GPS III spacecraft – has slipped one month and is now scheduled no earlier than (NET) January 2020.
Known as GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03), SpaceX’s next US military launch will follow just a few months after United Launch Alliance (ULA) is set to launch GPS III SV02, scheduled to lift off at 9am EDT, August 22nd. SpaceX kicked off the lengthy GPS III launch campaign in December 2018, successfully placing the ~3900 kg (8600 lb) communications and geolocation spacecraft into a transfer orbit. The mission also marked SpaceX’s first intentionally expendable Falcon 9 Block 5 launch, a trend that may or may not continue with the company’s next GPS launch.
Known as GPS Block IIIA, SV01-03 are the first three of a batch of 10 spacecraft total, produced by Lockheed Martin for an anticipated cost of roughly $600M apiece. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) expects [PDF] little to no cost savings per unit for Block IIIA’s follow-up, Block IIIF, in which 22 additional GPS III spacecraft will be built to fully upgrade the military’s GPS constellation. GAO estimates that those 22 satellites – likely to also be built by Lockheed Martin – will cost an incredible $12B, or ~$550M apiece.
On the scale of the US military’s woefully inefficient space procurement apparatus, ~$600M per satellite is sadly a pretty good deal. Two equally modern USAF satellite acquisition programs – the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and Space-Based Infrared System constellations – have both surpassed their initial cost estimates by more than a factor of two. Over the entire program, GAO estimates that six AEHF satellites no less than $3 billion each, while SBIRS is in even worse shape with six new satellites expected to cost $3.2 billion apiece.
Meanwhile, the Raytheon-built ‘OCX’ ground systems needed to take advantage of the ~$19B GPS III satellite upgrades has been just as much of an acquisition boondoggle, nearly doubling in cost over the last few years, bringing its final cost to no less than $6.2B after years of delays. All told, completing the upgraded GPS III constellation can be expected to cost a bare minimum of $25B. This cost doesn’t even include launches, but the cost of launching all the spacecraft is – in a rare instance – going to be a small fraction of the overall acquisition, perhaps $3-4B for all 32 satellites.
Regardless of the nightmarish costs and general inefficiency, Lockheed Martin and the USAF continue to slowly march towards initial GPS III operability. August 22nd’s ULA launch and January 2020’s SpaceX launch will take significant steps towards that capability, and will – with any luck – be followed by an additional two Falcon 9 GPS III launches in 2020. Six of ten IIIA satellites have already had launch contracts awarded, five of six of which were awarded to SpaceX.
End-of-year fireworks
GPS III SV03’s slip from December 2019 to January 2020 comes as plans for an ambitious final quarter have begun to take shape for SpaceX. Oddly, SpaceX is currently going through more than two months of downtime between its most recent launch (AMOS-17, August 6th) and its next mission (Starlink 1, NET late October). This will be the longest SpaceX has gone without launching since a catastrophic Falcon 9 failure grounded the company’s launch operations from September 2016 to January 2017.
By all appearances, customers’ payloads just aren’t ready, while SpaceX’s own Starlink constellation team is hard at work updating the satellite design and preparing for two back-to-back launches as early as October and November, potentially placing 120 high-performance satellites in orbit.
Aside from two Starlink launches scheduled in late-October and November, SpaceX has at least six other missions that could potentially launch in Q4 2019.
| Launch | Date (No Earlier Than) |
| Starlink 1 | October 17th |
| Starlink 2 | November 4th |
| Crew Dragon – In-Flight Abort | November 11th |
| ANASIS-II – South Korea | November – TBD |
| JCSat-18/Kacific-1 | November – TBD |
| Cargo Dragon CRS-19 | December 4th |
| Sirius XM-7 (SXM-7) | Q4 2019 – TBD |
| Crew Dragon – Demo-2 | December – TBD |
A lack of updates from Sirius XM and the fact that Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 launch will rely entirely upon the successful completion of its prior In-Flight Abort (IFA) mean that both will very likely slip into 2020. The remaining six launches, however, have a very decent chance of launching in 2019, assuming everything goes perfectly during satellite, Falcon 9, and launch pad pre-flight preparations.
SpaceX has successfully completed six launches in three months several times before, so six launches in Q4 2019 is entirely achievable, even if a pragmatist would do well to expect additional delays into 2020.
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
