News
SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch on track for Sunday liftoff
Update: SpaceX’s fifth Falcon Heavy launch is on track to launch as early as 5:56 pm EST (22:56 UTC), Sunday, January 15th. Tune in below around 5:40 pm EST (22:40 UTC) to watch the potentially spectacular launch live.
If Falcon Heavy does launch shortly after sunset, it could put on a spectacular show, lighting up the twilight skies for hundreds of miles up and down the East Coast.
The fifth Falcon Heavy rolled out of SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center Pad 39A integration hangar on January 9th and went vertical early on January 10th. 12 hours later, it was loaded with ~1500 tons (~3.3 million lbs) of liquid oxygen and kerosene propellant and ignited for about eight seconds. SpaceX uses static fire tests more liberally than most other launch providers to try to ensure that all systems – propulsion included – are cooperating before liftoff.
The update that's rolling out to the fleet makes full use of the front and rear steering travel to minimize turning circle. In this case a reduction of 1.6 feet just over the air— Wes (@wmorrill3) April 16, 2024
At full throttle, Falcon Heavy Block 5’s 27 Merlin 1D engines – nine per Falcon 9-derived booster – can produce 2326 tons (5.13 million lbf) of thrust at sea level, making it the most powerful privately-developed rocket in history. In terms of performance, Falcon Heavy is the fifth most capable rocket ever built and is second only to NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) today. While the records of N1, Saturn V, and Energia still stand, all three were retired decades ago.
As is the norm for a rocket with as little experience as Falcon Heavy, SpaceX conducted the static fire test without the USSF-67 payload installed. Like USSF-44, a virtually identical Falcon Heavy launch with similar payloads that launched on November 1st, 2022, SpaceX needs to roll the USSF-67 rocket back to the hangar for fairing installation. During USSF-44, SpaceX took approximately 110 hours to go from static fire to liftoff.
USSF-67’s static fire occurred about 100-104 hours before its scheduled liftoff, meaning that SpaceX only needs to be about 5% more efficient to be ready to launch on Saturday, January 14th. Assuming Falcon Heavy returns to the hangar and rolls back to the pad about as quickly as USSF-44, the odds of a Saturday launch are decent.
SpaceX’s second direct GEO launch
Like USSF-44, Falcon Heavy will sacrifice one of its three boosters (the center core) to launch USSF-67 directly to a circular geosynchronous orbit ~35,800 kilometers (~22,250 mi) above Earth’s surface. A satellite operating at GSO will never stray from the same region of Earth, making it useful for communications and surveillance. Getting there, however, can be exceptionally difficult.
“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 will complete a second burn to reach GTO. 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.
During that journey from 300 kilometers to 35,800 kilometers, the upper stage must also survive passes through both of Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts. At apogee, Falcon S2 must reignite its Merlin Vacuum engine for a minute or two to reach a circular GSO. Payload deployment follows soon after and could last anywhere from a few minutes to hours. Finally, to be a dutiful space tenant, Falcon’s upper stage must complete at least one more burn to reach a graveyard orbit a few hundred kilometers above GEO.”
Teslarati.com – November 1st, 2023
The USSF-67 payload is mostly a mystery. Like USSF-44, it will carry a Northrop Grumman LDPE (Long Duration Propulsive EELV) with several unspecified rideshare payloads. LPDE is a transfer vehicle capable of deploying small satellites into customized orbits and hosting payloads for months in space.
The US Space Systems Command says [PDF] that “LDPE provides critical data to inform future Space Force programs” and that “the unique experiments and prototype payloads hosted on LDPE-3A [will] advance warfighting capabilities in the areas of on-orbit threat assessment, space hazard detection, and space domain awareness.”
Stay tuned for updates on USSF-67’s launch schedule and SpaceX’s official webcast.
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
