News
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket back in action after a three-year hiatus
Update: The US Space Systems Command says that SpaceX’s first direct launch to geosynchronous orbit was a “simply outstanding” success, safely deploying several satellites more than 36,000 kilometers (~22,400 mi) above the Earth’s surface.
The success of the US Space Force’s USSF-44 mission means that SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket is now one of just a handful of operational rockets in the world that has demonstrated the ability to launch satellites directly to geosynchronous orbit. More importantly, it’s one of just three US rockets with that established capability. The other two rockets – ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV – will cease to be available for US military missions by the end of 2023, meaning that Falcon Heavy may briefly become the only rocket in the world able to launch certain US military missions until ULA’s next-generation Vulcan rocket is ready to prove itself.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy has continued a streak of successful dual-booster landings during its first attempted launch directly to geosynchronous orbit, a mission that was also the rocket’s first launch in more than three years.
Known as USSF-44 and initially scheduled to launch more than two years ago, the US Space Force mission finally lifted off on November 1st, 2022 after relentless payload delays. By mid-2021, the hardware required for SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch since June 2019 – mainly three new first-stage boosters – had finished qualification testing and been shipped to Florida in anticipation of a late-2021 or early-2022 launch. That launch never came.
Only in November 2022 did most or all of USSF-44’s payloads finally come together, resulting in a gap of more than 40 months between Falcon Heavy launches as practically every other payload assigned to the rocket in the interim experience their own significant delays. Regardless, on November 1st, Falcon Heavy lifted off for the fourth time and performed flawlessly for the nine minutes the US Space Force allowed SpaceX’s webcast to continue.
Over the course of those nine minutes, Falcon Heavy’s twin side boosters – both flying for the first time – helped send the rest of the rocket on its way to space before separating from the center core, upper stage, and payload to boost back towards the Florida coast. Less than eight minutes after liftoff, they safely touched down seconds apart at SpaceX’s LZ-1 and LZ-2 landing zones. Lacking grid fins or landing legs, Falcon Heavy’s intentionally-expendable center core (middle booster) continued burning for another 90 seconds and only separated from the upper stage after reaching a speed of almost four kilometers per second (8,900 mph) – a new record for a SpaceX rocket booster.
The center core, B1066, was likely obliterated when it reentered Earth’s atmosphere traveling at approximately 50% of orbital velocity. Side boosters B1064 and B1065, however, will be rapidly refurbished for a “future US Space Force mission” that SpaceX – perhaps incorrectly – says could follow USSF-44 as early as “later this year.” Unless SpaceX has received an additional USSF launch contract in secret, the company’s next USSF mission appears to be USSF-67, which the US Space Systems Command reported could launch as early as January 2023 in their latest press release [PDF]. USSF-44 and USSF-67 are technically set to launch in the same US fiscal year but not the same calendar year.
USSF-44 is SpaceX’s first direct geosynchronous launch, meaning that Falcon Heavy is attempting to deliver the US military’s payloads to a circular geosynchronous orbit (GEO) approximately 36,000 kilometers (~22,400 mi) above Earth’s surface. “Geosynchronous” refers to the fact that a spacecraft’s orbital velocity matches Earth’s rotational velocity at that altitude, making it a popular destination for communications and Earth observation satellites that want to observe the same region of Earth all the time. Ordinarily, to simplify the rocket’s job, most GEO-bound satellites are launched into an elliptical geosynchronous or geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and use their own propulsion to circularize that ellipse.
On a direct-to-GEO launch, the rocket does almost all of the work. After reaching a parking orbit in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Falcon Heavy’s upper stage likely completed a second burn to geosynchronous transfer orbit. Then, while conducting a complex ballet of thermal management and tank pressure maintenance to prevent all of its cryogenic liquid oxygen (LOx) from boiling into gas and its refined kerosene (RP-1) from freezing into an unusable slush, the upper stage must coast ‘uphill’ for around five or six hours.
Over that journey from an altitude of about 300 kilometers to 36,000 kilometers, in addition to the above tasks, the upper stage must also survive passes through both of Earth’s radiation belts. At apogee, Falcon S2 must reignite its Merlin Vacuum engine for around one or two minutes to reach a circular geosynchronous orbit. Payload deployment will follow and could last anywhere from a few minutes to an hour. Finally, to be a dutiful space tenant, Falcon’s upper stage must complete at least one or two more burns to reach its final destination: a graveyard orbit a few hundred kilometers above GEO.
SpaceX’s third Falcon Heavy launch, a US Air Force mission called STP-2, was a partial dry-run of direct-to-GEO launch – albeit in low Earth orbit (LEO) instead of LEO, GTO, and GEO. During STP-2, Falcon Heavy’s upper stage completed four successful burns in three and a half hours. USSF-44 is significantly more challenging by most measures but not entirely outside of SpaceX’s range of experience. In addition to STP-2, Falcon 9 upper stages have conducted a few long-duration coast tests after completing unrelated primary missions.
In statements made to Spaceflight Now, the US Space Systems Command said that USSF-44’s two main payloads are a pair of propulsive kick stages and payload platforms, one – LDPE-2 – supplied by Northrop Grumman and the other – the “Shepherd Demonstration” – a mystery. LDPE-2 will reportedly carry three hosted payloads and deploy three rideshare satellites: likely two Lockheed Martin LINUSS-A cubesats and Millenium Space Systems’ TETRA-1. All three rideshare satellites are designed to demonstrate various new technologies, ranging from propulsion systems to avionics.
Rewatch SpaceX’s USSF-44 Falcon Heavy launch here.
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
