News
Report: SpaceX to launch at least five back-to-back Crew Dragon missions for NASA
Update: Wasting no time at all, NASA has confirmed the Ars Technica report one day later, announcing that rookie astronauts Nicole Mann and Josh Cassada have been reassigned from Boeing Starliner missions to SpaceX’s Crew-5 Crew Dragon launch – currently no earlier than August 2022.
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger reports that NASA has begun the process of moving a number of astronauts assigned to Boeing’s ailing Starliner spacecraft to a SpaceX Crew Dragon mission scheduled no earlier than August 2022.
Per sources close to Berger, NASA has chosen to reassign two rookie astronauts to Crew Dragon as hopes of a crewed Starliner launch – and thus an opportunity for them to gain hands-on spaceflight experience – in the next 6-12 months continue to wither. Barring surprises, the implied change of plans behind those actions means that SpaceX now appears to be scheduled to fly five operational NASA Crew Dragon missions back to back before Boeing’s Starliner flies a single astronaut – let alone its first operational mission with four crew aboard.
In December 2019, nine months after Crew Dragon’s own uncrewed March 2019 debut, Starliner lifted off for the first time on a ULA Atlas V rocket. However, whereas Crew Dragon performed a practically flawless orbital launch, space station rendezvous, docking, departure, reentry, and splashdown on its first try, Starliner’s Orbital Flight Test (OFT) went horribly wrong as soon as it separated from Atlas V.
Due to shoddy prelaunch testing that failed to detect several gaping holes in Starliner’s software, the spacecraft effectively lost control as soon as it was under its own power. Aside from making ground communication and control far harder, Starliner burned through most of its propellant and pushed most of its maneuvering thrusters past their design limits in the first hour or two after launch. Due to the catastrophic software failure and lack of propellant margins, NASA unsurprisingly called off a planned space station rendezvous and docking attempt and Boeing ultimately ordered Starliner to reenter a few days after launch.
Mere hours before reentry, Boeing apparently detected and fixed another major software error at the last second, potentially preventing Starliner’s propulsion and service module from smashing into the capsule’s fragile heat shield and dooming the spacecraft to burn up during reentry. Ultimately, it’s likely that the only reason Boeing didn’t suffer a total loss of vehicle (LOV) during Starliner’s OFT debut spacecraft was dumb luck. Had the initial clock error been worse, Starliner could have failed to reach orbit entirely or burned through all of its propellant, resulting in an uncontrolled reentry. Had there been no clock issue, it’s hard to imagine that Boeing’s software team would have attempted the panicked, impromptu bug hunt that detected and fixed the service module recontact issue.
Now, 22 months after Starliner’s catastrophic OFT, Boeing has been forced to stand down from a second self-funded orbital flight test (OFT-2) due to the last-second discovery of more than a dozen malfunctioning valves on the second spacecraft’s service module. Aside from raising the question of how Boeing and NASA yet again failed to detect a glaring Starliner issue until the day of launch, Starliner’s valve issues appear likely to cause another multi-month delay as Boeing is forced to investigate the problem, find the root cause, and implement a fix on all impacted service modules.
NASA reassigning some of the astronauts scheduled to helm Starliner on its Crewed Flight Test (CFT) and first operational mission to Crew Dragon’s August 2022 Crew-5 launch seemingly implies that the space agency is not confident that Boeing will have completed Starliner OFT-2, passed extensive post-flight reviews, and readied another Starliner for CFT by Q3 2022. Given that NASA took some 14 months to OK Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 crewed flight test after Demo-1’s March 2019 success and a catastrophic April 2019 failure during a ground test of the recovered capsule, it’s not unreasonable to assume that NASA will take about a year after OFT-2 to approve Starliner’s first crewed flight test.
If significant issues arise during OFT-2, which is now unlikely to occur before early 2022, a year-long gap is even more likely. Ultimately, that means that there is now a significant chance that SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft will complete not just five – but six – back-to-back operational NASA astronaut launches before Starliner is ready for its first operational ferry mission. SpaceX, in other words, is now expected to singlehandedly hold the line and ensure biannual NASA access to and from the International Space Station (ISS) for more than two years despite charging NASA $2 billion less than Boeing (~$5B vs ~$3B) to develop Crew Dragon.
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
