News
SpaceX urges White House to foster public-private partnerships in space
Earlier this year, the White House announced plans to reestablish the National Space Council (NSC), an advising body that dates back to the creation of NASA in 1958. The council convened for the first time on October 5 and invited several central figures in US spaceflight, including SpaceX’s President and COO Gwynne Shotwell.
In a brief but powerful speech to the Council, Shotwell urged the US Federal government to apply the lessons learned from NASA’s successful private-public partnerships to efforts to expand human presence in Low Earth Orbit and beyond. Those successful partnerships include NASA COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services), which funded SpaceX to develop its Cargo Dragon spacecraft to resupply the ISS, and the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) that funded SpaceX for the development of their crewed Dragon 2 spacecraft. In terms of efficiency and speed, both programs have indeed been extraordinarily successful, despite often maligned delays.
As a brief example of the insignificance of SpaceX’s Commercial Crew delays, one needs to look no further than NASA’s Space Launch System. Described in early 2011 to be pursuing operational readiness no later than December 2016, SLS is now extremely unlikely to conduct its first launch until well into 2020. A reasonable cost estimate spreads the development costs ($30 billion) over 30 years of operations, assumes an optimistic one launch per year for the vehicle, and arrives at an astounding final figure of $5 billion per SLS launch.
The development funds NASA awarded SpaceX for both Cargo Dragon, Falcon 9, and Crew Dragon were estimated to be no more than $7.3 billion from 2006 to the last Cargo Dragon mission currently scheduled for 2024. Even if this figure swells to $10 billion once operational crewed flights to the ISS begin in 2018 or 2019, the entire cost of NASA’s support of SpaceX would equate to two launches of SLS total.
NASA slipped a sly glimpse of Dragon 2 construction into their live coverage SpaceX’s CRS-12 launch. On the left is a Dragon 2 pressure vessel, while on the right is the vehicle’s “trunk”. (NASA)
Shotwell made sure to avoid the topic of SLS entirely, instead choosing to highlight the benefits of cost and speed public-private partnerships could provide for deep space communications and interplanetary cargo transport. This marks the second time that a ranking member of SpaceX has mentioned a possible public-private program for deep space communications, something that will inevitably need to improve as the commercial spaceflight apparatus extends its reach beyond Earth. SpaceX is currently developing satellite technology to enable a massive orbital Internet constellation around Earth, and the company is obviously interested in leveraging that R&D to strengthen Earth-Mars and Earth-Moon networks into a more robust communications backbone. Secretary of Transport Elaine Chao and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also slipped in words of excitement and interest in SpaceX’s recently revealed concept of point to point Earth transportation with their BFR system.
This meeting of the NSC also focused heavily on the domestic and regulatory apparatus for commercial space operations. Shotwell and Blue Origin’s CEO Bob Smith both suggested that the FAA’s current rules and regulations regarding commercial spaceflight ought to be reviewed and potentially updated to better account for a future of reusable commercial launch vehicles. Shotwell subtly maligned the often-tedious process of applying for FAA launch permits, pointing to the fact that even slight changes to permits would force companies to file entirely new applications, often taking six months or longer. SpaceX, with its rapid development and deployment of reusable rockets and an ever-increasing launch cadence, is more than ever before at odds with the FAA’s slow and unforgiving permitting processes.
SpaceX’s BFR Earth transport concept would undoubtedly clash head-on with the FAA’s current system of rocket regulations. (SpaceX)
Intriguingly, Council members Mike Pence, Mick Mulvaney, and Elaine Chao all expressed a desire to ease the burden of anachronistic regulations on the commercial space industry. More interesting still, the commercial space panel ended with what effectively sounded like a handshake deal between the Vice President, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review current commercial spaceflight regulations and report the results of those reviews to the NSC in no more than 45 days.
It remains to be seen if this verbal commitment translates into an official review, but it is at a minimum encouraging to hear ranking members of the current White House administration so openly express support for SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corp., and American commercial spaceflight in general.
The First Meeting of the National Space Council can be seen in the embed below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2jVG76S7g
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
