Connect with us

News

SpaceX’s flight-proven Falcon 9 and drone ship fleet ready for duo of launches

Published

on

SpaceX is gearing up for a duo of flight-proven Falcon 9 launches and drone ship landings on both coasts of the United States, set for liftoff from Cape Canaveral’s Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg Air Force Base no earlier than (NET) November 15th and 19th, respectively.

East Coast activities

On the East Coast, drone ship Of Course I Still Love You departed from Port Canaveral late last night (Nov 11) as Falcon 9 B1047 rolled onto Pad 39A for a preflight static fire test, where the rocket will be filled with a full complement of fluids (TEA/TEB, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, kerosene) and all nine Merlin 1D engines are ignited in order to replicate the seconds just prior to a real launch. That static fire test was originally expected to occur on November 10 or 11 but has obviously been pushed back a day to Nov. 12, likely meaning that the rocket’s launch – carrying Qatari communications satellite Es’hail-2 – will slip 24 hours to 3:46pm EST (08:46 UTC) on the 16th,

Following the unfortunate loss of Amos-6 during a preflight static fire in September 2016, SpaceX has since made a reasonable move away from performing static fires with payloads integrated atop the rocket, unless the customer specifically requests that it be done that way to save time. As such, Falcon 9 must be brought horizontal, rolled back to the hangar, inspected, and finally have the payload and fairing attached to the rocket, a sensitive process that demands nuance and time. Combined with an analysis of data gathered during the static fire, this process – when all goes as planned – can take at least 48 hours from start to finish, and longer still if any minor off-nominal behavior is observed or the launch customer has additional requirements (typically reserved for NASA and national security-related missions).

 

Advertisement
-

Because rockets like Falcon 9 are extraordinarily intricate and finely-tuned machines, perfectly nominal launch-related events are few and far between. In reality, the time between static fire rollout and launch readiness is rarely less than three days (72 hours), not including the process of rolling the fully-integrated rocket back out to the pad, aligning and securing the vehicle and transporter-erector (TE) over the flame trench, and finally attaching all umbilical connections and verifying vehicle health. Speaking generally, four to five days is a good rule of thumb for the time it takes to complete Falcon 9’s static fire and return the rocket to the pad after attaching the payload.

Still, it’s always a good sign when a drone ship leaves port, much like OCISLY did on the evening of the 11th. The journey to its destination will take 2-3 days, meaning that the drone ship will be ready to catch Falcon 9 whenever the rocket is ready to launch.

A sooty booster – assumed to be B1047.2 – rolled out to Pad 39A on Sunday morning Eastern time. (Tom Cross)

Drone ships and sooty rockets, oh my!

On the West Coast, SpaceX is also getting ready for drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI) to depart Port of San Pedro in anticipation of a presumed sea recovery of Falcon 9 following the NET Nov 19 launch of a multi-satellite rideshare mission known as SSO-A. While SpaceX currently holds two recovery licenses for the booster, one by sea and one at the land-based LZ-4 pad, it’s possible that the company will be forced to use JRTI despite the fact that Falcon 9 will have plenty of propellant left to return itself to the launch site (RTLS). United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) next Delta IV Heavy rocket is currently on-pad with a presumably very expensive National Reconnaissance (NRO) satellite attached roughly 1.5 miles northeast of SpaceX’s LZ-4 – the rest of the gaps are easy enough to fill in.

 

JRTI was spotted by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin performing some rare sea trials on November 10 after spending several weeks berthed at port for routine maintenance and deck repairs. Fairing recovery vessel Mr. Steven has also been undergoing some unusual modifications, now proudly sporting what can only be described as a steel horn recently installed on the tip of his bow deck. After sitting out a catch attempt during the launch of SAOCOM 1A to prepare for controlled helicopter drop tests performed over a period of several weeks in October, Mr. Steven will most likely be ready for another stab at operational fairing recovery during SSO-A.

Both rockets – B1047 to the East and (presumed) B1046 to the West – are flight-proven, meaning that they have flown operational orbital missions prior to their upcoming launch attempts, B1047 launched communications satellite Telstar 19V in July 2018, while B1046 has actually performed two successful launches already, Bangabandhu-1 in May and Telkom 4 (Merah Putih) in August.


For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

Advertisement
-

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading