News
SpaceX still an option for future Amazon internet satellite launches, says Senior VP
An Amazon executive says that the company could still call on SpaceX to launch some of its Project Kuiper internet satellites after two of the three unproven rockets it purchased announced launch delays days apart.
Amazon began work on Project Kuiper in 2018. When SpaceX CEO Elon Musk fired several senior employees overseeing the company’s Starlink satellite internet program for being overly cautious, at least two of those employees immediately landed in senior positions at Project Kuiper. Four years later and more than two years after Amazon received an FCC license to deploy its 3,236-satellite Project Kuiper constellation, which aims to compete directly with SpaceX’s Starlink, the company’s first prototype satellite launch has changed rockets and slipped from late 2022 to early 2023.
Of the 77 firm launch contracts Amazon has signed since April 2021, only nine are for a rocket – United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V – that has already successfully flown. The remaining 68 (and another 15 exercisable options) are spread among ULA’s Vulcan Centaur, Arianespace’s Ariane 6, and Blue Origin’s New Glenn, all of which are months away from their first launch attempts.
On October 10th, ULA CEO Tory Bruno told reporters that Vulcan Centaur’s launch debut had slipped from its latest late-2022 target to no earlier than (NET) “early 2023.” Garnering 38 of 77 firm contracts, Vulcan is the single most important rocket for Amazon’s Project Kuiper plans and is likely expected to launch close to half of all Kuiper satellites.
Nine days later, Ariane Group and the European Space Agency (ESA) announced that Ariane 6’s launch debut had also slipped from a late-2022 target. Unlike Vulcan’s gentle early-2023 slip, Ariane 6’s debut was pushed to late 2023 at the earliest, and ESA and Ariane officials frankly admitted that that could easily become 2024. Excluding options, Ariane 6 won 18 Project Kuiper launch contracts and is the constellation’s second most important rocket.
Because Amazon applied for its Project Kuiper license so early, a six-year countdown started when the FCC approved its license in July 2020. If Amazon fails to launch half of its 3,236 satellites within six years of that receipt, the FCC could revoke Kuiper’s constellation license. While it’s unlikely that the FCC would actually revoke the license of a constellation that’s close to achieving its deployment milestones, the deadline still emphasizes just how far Amazon and its suppliers are falling behind.
Vulcan, Ariane 6, and Project Kuiper prototype launch delays have only worsened an already challenging situation. In addition to the rocket’s long-awaited debut, ULA has major obligations to NASA and the US military, who expect Vulcan to complete up to four more launches in 2023. Unless ULA pulls off a minor miracle, it’s unlikely that Vulcan will be able to launch five times in its first year of service. Respectively, ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets took 2.5 and 3.5 years to reach that milestone. If ULA’s past record serves as a reasonable guide for its future, it’s possible that Vulcan Centaur won’t have the spare capacity to begin Project Kuiper launches until 2025.
The same is arguably true for Ariane 6, which has an even busier manifest – all of which may be delayed to 2024. Of Arianespace’s two most recent rockets, Ariane 4 took 14 months and Ariane 5 took 53 months to complete their first five fully successful launches. Ariane 6 borrows heavily from Ariane 5’s design. Unless Arianespace gets off to a record-breaking start or prioritizes Amazon over ESA and other European operators, an almost unthinkable scenario, it’s difficult to imagine that Ariane 6 will have the spare capacity to begin Project Kuiper launches before 2025 or 2026.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, which is years behind schedule and unlikely to debut before late 2023 or 2024, might ironically be Amazon’s best bet for the first dedicated Project Kuiper launch, but only if its debut is near-flawless and doesn’t slip any further. Given that New Glenn will be Blue Origin’s first orbital rocket of any kind, more delays and issues (if not an outright failure) on the first launch are likely. New Glenn is thus also unlikely to be ready to launch large batches of Project Kuiper satellites until 2024 or 2025. Given the record of its suborbital New Shepard rocket, the odds are also against Blue Origin quickly ramping up the cadence of a far more complex orbital launch vehicle.
Only Atlas V appears to have any significant chance of beginning large-scale Project Kuiper launches before 2025. But ULA is shutting down Atlas V production to transition to Vulcan, so it’s impossible for Amazon to order more than nine of the rockets, as ULA.
Unfortunately for Amazon, in addition to the many rocket-side issues facing Project Kuiper, its satellite prototype delays will make it even harder for the company to begin large-scale launches sooner than later. SpaceX, now the proud owner of a majority of all working satellites in orbit, took around 21 months to go from launching its first two prototypes to its first batch of 60 operational Starlink satellites. The satellite design it settled on was almost nothing like the first two prototypes.
If Amazon’s first prototypes launch on Vulcan’s early-2023 debut, perform excellently, meet or exceed expectations after just a few months of testing, and are close to the final satellite design, Project Kuiper may still have a shot at manufacturing enough satellites to fill one or more launches in 2024. But if its first satellites run into major issues, Amazon’s decision to “[bring] up manufacturing of…production satellites [in parallel with prototype development]” could set it back months if it’s forced to redesign its satellites, find new suppliers, or significantly change the factory it’s already building.
Combined, Project Kuiper finds itself in an unenviable position. It’s thus unsurprising that as of October 2022, an Amazon executive appears to have changed their tune about using SpaceX rockets. Over the last ~13 months, SpaceX has become the single most productive launch provider in the world, besting the entire nation of China. On a quarterly basis, SpaceX now launches more useful mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. It’s also the only launch provider on Earth that can create spare capacity for last-minute customers by shuffling its own internal launch demands.
According to Dave Limp, senior vice president of devices and services at Amazon, Project Kuiper is willing to consider taking advantage of some of SpaceX’s unprecedented capabilities after it shunned the company entirely in earlier contracts and statements. Speaking in a Washington Post Live interview, Limp says that Amazon is “open to contracting with anyone” and understands “that heavy launch capacity is [and will likely remain] pretty constrained” for years to come.
Unfortunately, Limp began by falsely asserting that Falcon 9 was too small to have warranted earlier launch contracts, stating that it’s “probably at the low end of…the capacity that we need.” In an expendable configuration, Falcon 9 can launch more than 22 tons (~48,500 lb) to low Earth orbit (LEO), while Ariane 6 is quoted at [PDF] 21.7 tons (~47,800 lb). While it hasn’t flown, SpaceX also offers an extended payload fairing that should more or less match Vulcan and Ariane 6’s largest fairings.
But Limp expressed interest in SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, which could likely match or come close to the payload volume of Ariane 6 and Vulcan and far exceed either rocket’s performance to LEO. In a configuration that would allow SpaceX to recover all three of Falcon Heavy’s boosters, almost guaranteeing that it would cost less than Vulcan or Ariane 6, the rocket would likely be able to launch around 40-50 tons (90,000-110,000 lb) to LEO. The Amazon executive even brought up SpaceX’s next-generation Starship rocket as a more desirable option for future Project Kuiper launches. Starship is designed to launch anywhere from 100 to 150 tons to LEO, should cost even less than Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, and will eventually feature a payload bay that dwarfs even New Glenn’s massive fairing.
Nonetheless, despite the promise of SpaceX, Amazon appears to be in no rush to hedge its bets on Vulcan, Ariane 6, and New Glenn. Only time will tell if its multi-billion-dollar gamble pays off.
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
