News
SpaceX bids goodbye to older Falcon 9s with Florida ‘jellyfish’ launch spectacle
SpaceX’s final Block 4 Falcon 9 has completed its second and last orbital mission with a spectacular sendoff visible for hundreds of miles along the East Coast, harkening back to “alien invasion” comparisons that followed an equally stunning SpaceX launch from California last December.
Although the Falcon 9 booster was expended in the Atlantic Ocean minutes after launch, its upper stage remains in orbit in an experimental test of its lifespan, while the mission’s flight-proven Cargo Dragon spacecraft separated from the rocket and headed to the International Space Station with a promise of a possible third orbital reuse in 2019. This mission’s Dragon capsule flew for the first time in late 2016 for the CRS-9 mission and spent the two years since then having its heat shield and other major components refurbished or replaced, likely at a cost to SpaceX less than half that of constructing a brand-new Dragon spacecraft.
Falcon 9 B1045 lounges in the Florida summer humidity, hours before its second and final launch. (Tom Cross)
According to Jessica Jensen, SpaceX’s Director of Dragon Mission Management, SpaceX’s Dragon refurbishment team has also gotten considerably more efficient over several years of experience reusing the orbital spacecraft, now up to three reflights of three separate capsules. She noted in the postlaunch conference that – if all major components are healthy upon CRS-15’s early-August return to Earth – this capsule could be refurbished for its third mission in as few as months, which would make it one of the last Dragon 1 launches before the upgraded Dragon 2 begins crewed flights and takes over all cargo missions. After CRS-15, five more of those Cargo Dragon flights remain until CRS-2’s 2020 takeover, all of which will utilize flight-proven capsules.
-
- CRS-15’s dramatic pre-dawn launch. (Tom Cross)
-
- The extraordinary plume was lit up by the sun before it had risen above the Eastern horizon. (Tom Cross)
Falcon 9, on the other hand, reached a truly historic milestone today for SpaceX – B1045’s second and final flight marks the last rocket SpaceX will fly that does not feature a number of upgrades designed to dramatically improve booster reusability. Known as Falcon 9 Block 5, all future SpaceX missions (at least until BFR’s debut sometime in the early 2020s) will be launched aboard the upgraded rocket. If it works as intended, Block 5 should theoretically enable a rapid and affordable level of reusability never before achieved by Falcon 9 or any other rocket, for that matter.
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1012694524987092992
While still more than a little disheartening to see a Falcon 9 booster intentionally expended after launch, the spectacle created by B1045’s final flight was fitting, to say the least. Thankfully, the Block 5 takeover of all future SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches is likely to also result in a dramatic reduction in SpaceX’s willingness to expend flight-proven rockets after launch. Whereas Block 3 and 4 Falcon 9s were never designed to affordably and safely fly more than two or three times total, minimizing any opportunity cost from expending twice-flown rockets after launch, Block 5 has been purpose-built to allow individual boosters to fly a bare minimum of 10 times with minimal refurbishment and as many as 100 times with regular maintenance. Unless Block 5’s design fails to achieve that level of reusability, SpaceX is extremely unlikely to expend Block 5 boosters unless they have flown a number of times to extract as much value as possible from them.
Up next on SpaceX’s manifest are two back-to-back Falcon 9 Block 5 launches, Iridium-7 from California on July 20 and Telstar 19V from Florida less than 18 hours later. Both Block 5 boosters will be recovered aboard SpaceX’s fleet of drone ships, Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) to the West and Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) to the East.
Follow us for live updates, peeks behind the scenes, and photos from Teslarati’s East and West Coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
