News
SpaceX’s next commercial Falcon Heavy launch to carry Astranis rideshare satellite
Geostationary satellite communications startup Astranis has decided to move its first operational satellite launch from a SpaceX Falcon 9 to a Falcon Heavy, effectively securing the massive rocket its first commercial rideshare payload.
While not technically Falcon Heavy’s first rideshare payload and not the rocket’s first commercial rideshare launch contract, Astranis’ first 400 kg (~900 lb) MicroGEO satellite nevertheless appears set to become the first commercial rideshare payload to actually fly on the world’s largest operational rocket. Not all that dissimilar to Starlink in scope and its desire to disrupt a stagnant industry, Astranis wants to offer global communications services providers a different route to geostationary internet and broadcast solutions. Unlike SpaceX’s constellation, the startup’s MicroGEO satellites are designed for geostationary orbits ~36,000 km (~22,200 mi) above Earth’s surface and more than 60 times higher than Starlink.
However, like Starlink satellites, MicroGEO will feature exceptional density (throughput per kilogram), weighing a magnitude less than average modern geostationary communications satellites while still offering up to 10 Gbps of bandwidth. Expected to cost around $40M apiece compared to ~$100M+ for most traditional offerings, the value proposition of small Astranis satellites with 5-10 times less bandwidth admittedly gets a bit blurrier, but the company should still offer a viable alternative for companies and countries that just don’t need a massive satellite.
For example, Astranis’ first customer and the buyer behind the first MicroGEO satellite – known as Aurora 4A – is Pacific Dataport, a company focused on delivering connectivity throughout Alaska – one of the most remote and sparsely populated places on Earth. That combination of attributes makes providing broadband communication services spectacularly difficult and satellite internet the perfect (and, to an extent, the only viable) solution. However, a full $100M+ geostationary communications satellite with 50-100+ Gbps of bandwidth would likely far outweigh the needs of Alaska’s ~730,000 residents – especially when most Alaskans live in the state’s few large cities, most of which already have passable internet connectivity.
As such, it’s easy to see why a small but high-performance geostationary satellite like the kind Astranis offers might be a perfect fit for an Alaskan internet provider. While low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations like OneWeb and SpaceX’s Starlink do offer far more bandwidth and a user experience potentially as good or better than a wired connection almost anywhere on Earth, both companies first have to launch hundreds or thousands of satellites to ensure continuous coverage. Both Starlink and OneWeb are a ways away from offering continuous coverage in polar regions.
Geostationary satellites – especially those as small as Aurora 4A – offer a significant shortcut, requiring just a single satellite and ground stations in one or a few very specific regions to fully complete a communications network. Of course, thanks to universal limits posed by the speed of light, geostationary internet customers end up saddled with extreme latency (ping on the order of 300-1000ms) and strict individual bandwidth limits. But in places like Alaska, where there can easily be no alternative for the most rural residents, Astranis – or just about anything – could bring welcome relief.
Now, Astranis says it has moved the first MicroGEO satellite from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to rideshare payload on Falcon Heavy’s upcoming ViaSat-3 launch, scheduled no earlier than Q2 2022. According to the startup, doing so will allow the tiny satellite to begin operations over Alaska mere days or a few weeks after launch, saving months of orbit-raising thanks to Falcon Heavy’s performance. That’s only possible because, as the Astranis press release also revealed, Falcon Heavy is scheduled to launch the 6.4 ton (~14,100 lb) ViaSat-3 and 400 kg (~900 lb) Aurora 4A satellites directly to geostationary orbit (GEO). If Falcon Heavy’s upcoming USSF-44 mission launches on schedule next month, ViaSat-3 will be SpaceX’s second direct-to-GEO mission ever and the company’s first for a commercial customer.
Assuming SpaceX is still able to recover two – or even all three – of Falcon Heavy’s side boosters while launching almost 7 tons (~15,500 lb) of satellites directly to GEO, it will also demonstrate just how much of a force to be reckoned with it really is, well and truly leaving competitors ULA and Arianespace with nowhere to hide on the open market.
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
