News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy fairing tries to enter hyperspace, lands in net in new videos
SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk have released videos offering an extended look at the unexpectedly dramatic conditions Falcon payload fairings are subjected to during atmospheric reentry, as well as the first successful landing in GO Ms. Tree’s net.
Captured via an onboard GoPro camera during Falcon Heavy’s June 25th launch of the USAF Space Test Program-2 (STP-2) mission, the minute-long cut shows off a light show more indicative of a spacecraft entering hyperspace than the slightly more mundane reality. Shortly after SpaceX posted the reentry video, CEO Elon Musk followed up with a video showing a fairing’s gentle landing in Ms. Tree’s net. More likely than not, the fairing with the camera attached and the fairing that became the first to successfully land in Mr. Steven’s (now GO Ms. Tree’s) net are the same half. Regardless, the videos help document a major step forward towards SpaceX’s ultimate goal of fairing reuse.
“In a pleasant, last-minute surprise, SpaceX fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has departed Port Canaveral for its first Falcon fairing catch attempt in more than half a year. The speedy ship has already traveled more than 1250 km (800 mi) in ~48 hours and should soon be in position to attempt recovery of Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s payload fairing halves.
Over the last week or two, Mr. Steven has been officially renamed to GO Ms. Tree, a strong indicator that Guice Offshore (GO) – a company SpaceX is heavily involved with – has acquired the vessel from financially troubled owner/operator Sea-Tran Marine. With this likely acquisition, nearly all of SpaceX’s non-drone ship vessels are now leased from – and partially operated by – GO. The name change is undeniably bittersweet for those that have been following Mr. Steven’s fairing recovery journey from the beginning. However, it’s also more than a little fitting given that the vessel switched coasts and suffered an accident that forced SpaceX to replace the entirety of its arm-boom-net assembly. Much of Mr. Steven – now GO Ms. Tree – has been replaced in the last few months and with any luck, the vessel is better equipped than ever before to snag its first Falcon fairing(s) out of the air.”
— Teslarati.com, June 24th
As they say, the rest is history. Some 60-75 minutes after Falcon Heavy lifted off from Pad 39A on June 25th, Ms. Tree successfully caught a parasailing fairing for the first time ever, just barely snagging one of the two halves at the very edge of the ship’s net. Two days later, Ms. Tree arrived back at Port Canaveral. Another 24 hours after that, the intact, dry fairing half was safely lifted onto land and transported to a local SpaceX facility dedicated to analyzing (and eventually refurbishing) recovered Falcon fairings.
Landing on Ms. Tree pic.twitter.com/4lhPWRpaS9— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 4, 2019
With any luck, the successful catch will prove that the years of work have been worth it, demonstrating that fairing halves caught – rather than fished out of the ocean – are structurally sound and clean enough to be quickly and affordably reused. While Falcon fairings have been estimated to take up less than 10% of the material cost of Falcon 9 production (~$6M, $3M/half), the manufacturing apparatus needed to build them takes up a huge amount of space. Additionally, the process of oven-curing huge, monolithic carbon fiber fairings introduces fundamental constraints that physically limit how quickly they can be built.
Fairing reuse would be an invaluable benefit for SpaceX’s internal Starlink launches, of which dozens and – eventually – hundreds will be needed to build an operational constellation of satellites. Thanks to the wonders of Falcon 9 Block 5 booster reuse, the internal cost of a flight-proven booster is essentially just the cost of refurbishment and then the propellant and work-hours needed to launch it. What remains is the cost of the expendable Falcon upper stage (unlikely to be recovered or reused) and payload fairing, now reasonably consistent at landing intact on the ocean surface but yet to demonstrate practical reusability.
As proposed, SpaceX’s completed Starlink constellation represents almost 12,000 satellites. Assuming no progress is made with packing density, no larger payload fairing is developed, and Starship doesn’t reach orbit until the mid-2020s (admittedly unlikely), Starlink will require almost exactly 200 Falcon 9 launches, each carrying 60 satellites. According to Musk, despite the fact that the first 60 satellites launched were effectively advanced prototypes, the cost of launch is already more than the cost of satellite production.
Speaking at a conference in 2017, Musk noted that payload fairings cost about $6M to produce, roughly 10% of Falcon 9’s $62M list price. In 2013, Musk stated that the first stage represented less than 75% of the overall cost of Falcon 9 production, meaning that the rocket’s upper stage probably represents another 15-20% (call it a 70:20:10 split), or ~$9-12M. Conservatively assuming that the operating costs of Falcon 9 refurbishment, launch, and recovery are roughly $5M per mission, the internal cost to SpaceX for a launch with a recoverable flight-proven booster and an expended fairing and upper stage could be just $20-25M and may be even lower.
For reference, assuming 200 Falcon 9 launches, SpaceX could save nearly $600M by consistently recovering and reusing just one fairing half on average per launch, up to as much as $1.2B if both halves can be consistently recovered and reused. June 25th’s successful fairing catch is the biggest step yet in that direction and is hopefully a sign of many good things to come for SpaceX’s latest attempt at building truly reusable rockets.
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
