News
SpaceX sends OneWeb satellites to orbit on 55th launch of 2022
SpaceX has successfully launched the first of at least three missions for Starlink competitor OneWeb, completing its 55th launch of the year in the process.
Hopefully ending a strange series of delays that began last month, Falcon 9 lifted off from SpaceX’s NASA Kennedy Space Center LC-39A pad several days behind schedule on December 8th, 2022. The rocket performed perfectly, ascending for about nine minutes to reach a parking orbit around 400 kilometers (~300 mi) above Earth’s surface. B1069, Falcon 9’s flight-proven booster, shut down, separated from the upper stage, flipped around with cold-gas thrusters, and began boosting back to the Florida coast two and a half minutes after liftoff.
Thanks to the launch’s timing, which happened moments after sunset, B1069 first experienced sunset on the ground, ascended back into the light after liftoff, and finally experienced a second sunset while racing back to Earth – all beautifully captured by SpaceX tracking cameras. Eight minutes after liftoff, the Falcon 9 booster touched down on SpaceX’s LZ-1 landing pad, completing its fourth orbital-class launch in 12 months. Around the same time, Falcon 9’s upper stage reached orbit.
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
An hour after liftoff, the upper stage ignited a second time to circularize its parking orbit. Its payload – a record 40 OneWeb satellites weighing roughly 6.5 metric tons (~14,300 lb) – was then deployed in two sets of 13 and one set of 14 over the next half hour, after which the upper stage likely performed a deorbit burn to ensure it doesn’t become space debris.
For its own Starlink internet constellation, SpaceX routinely launches 54+ satellites – weighing almost 17 tons (~37,000 lb) – at once, demonstrating the kind of efficiency that can be achieved when a satellite is explicitly designed to use as much of Falcon 9’s performance as possible. To some extent, OneWeb did something similar, but for a different rocket. OneWeb’s far more traditional 150-kilogram (~330 lb) satellites were loosely designed to launch on Russia’s Soyuz 2.1 after the company purchased up to 21 of the rockets for $1-1.5 billion in 2015.
But their more traditional hollow-box design and traditional cylindrical payload dispenser means they take up as much or more space than Starlink satellites despite weighing 50-100% less. OneWeb says each satellite provides up to 7 gigabits per second (Gbps) of bandwidth, while each Starlink V1 satellite appears to have about 20 Gbps.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, OneWeb directly competes with SpaceX’s far larger Starlink internet constellation, and refused to engage with the company for launch services – even though Falcon 9 could have likely deployed its satellites more quickly and efficiently – until it was forced to.
“The only reason OneWeb agreed to launch a small subset of its first-generation satellites on SpaceX rockets was a series of egregious actions from Russia that made the pair’s exclusive arrangement too toxic to continue. In June 2015, just 16 months after Russia illegally invaded Ukraine’s Crimea and Donbas regions, OneWeb chose to tie itself at the hip to the unstable aggressor with a firm $1-1.5 billion contract that committed the entirety of its first satellite constellation to 21 Russian Soyuz rockets.
OneWeb nearly escaped consequences from that dubious decision. But in February 2022, Russia doubled down on eight years of small-scale war and Ukrainian occupation with a full-scale, gloves-off invasion with explicit genocidal intent. Europe eventually responded in part with economic sanctions and military supplies that Russia did not appreciate. In response, Russia took a batch of 36 OneWeb satellites hostage, stole the Soyuz rocket OneWeb had already paid for, and killed any possibility of the company completing the six or seven Soyuz launches left under its Arianespace contract. In September 2022, OneWeb announced that it had written off a loss of $229 million as a result of those stolen satellites and rockets.”
Teslarati.com — December 6th, 2022
OneWeb was thus forced to either accept major delays while waiting for European launch options or look elsewhere. OneWeb was able to secure two contracts for India LVM3 rockets, each carrying 36 satellites, but the company chose SpaceX – the only Western launch provider in the world with large amounts of near-term capacity to spare – to launch three batches of 40 satellites.
After its first SpaceX launch, OneWeb should have 500 working satellites in orbit. Another LVM3 launch and two Falcon 9 launches should leave the company with 616 of 648 planned satellites in orbit. It’s unclear how OneWeb intends to launch the 32 remaining satellites.
OneWeb Flight 15 was SpaceX’s 55th successful launch of 2022, leaving the company just five launches away from achieving a 60-launch target set by CEO Elon Musk in March. Following an unintentional 12-day gap between launches caused by several delays, it’s no longer clear if SpaceX can hit that target. SpaceX has never launched later than December 23rd, and it’s extremely unlikely that the company will be able to launch five more times in the next 15 days. Even if it can break through that apparent barrier, it’s also almost impossible to imagine that SpaceX will be able to launch five more times before the end of the year if each mission continues to suffer days or weeks of technical delays.
Originally scheduled to lift off on November 22nd, 29th, 30th, and December 7th, SpaceX’s next mission – carrying a private Japanese Moon lander – is scheduled to launch no earlier than December 11th. After HAKUTO-R, Spaceflight Now reports that SpaceX has another four launches tentatively scheduled this month.
Rewatch SpaceX’s first OneWeb launch here.
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
