News
SpaceX hints at mystery Falcon 9 missions with record breaking launch target
Speaking at the 2019 Smallsat Symposium, SpaceX Vice President of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller announced that the company will try to break the launch record it set last year in 2019. That record stands at 21 successful missions, while President and COO Gwynne Shotwell stated in a May 2018 interview that she was anticipating 24-28 launches in 2018 and ~18 in 2019.
Ranging from Crew Dragon transporting astronauts and a duo of Falcon Heavy missions to perhaps ten commercial satellite launches, 2019 will undoubtedly be full of major events for SpaceX. However, SpaceX’s publicly-available launch manifest suggests that there will be no more than 18 government and commercial missions ready for the company to place in orbit before 2019 is out, implying that Hofeller may be hinting at launches that are not yet public.
Last May, SpaceX Prez Gwynne Shotwell was projecting 24 to 28 launches for 2018 but more like 18 for 2019. 21+ may be an “aspirational goal,” unless they’re counting Starship Hopper: https://t.co/RDbdPLA2Z7
— Alan Boyle (@b0yle) February 7, 2019
In just the last two years (24 months), SpaceX has successfully launched Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy an astounding 40 times, averaging approximately one launch every 2.5 weeks. In 2017, SpaceX demolished its own prior cadence record with 18 launches, a record the company’s exceptional workforce summarily proceeded to beat in 2018 with 21 successful missions launched. A vast majority of those 40 missions (27 to be precise) were the result of competitive, commercial contracts that SpaceX has been extremely successful at winning, thanks largely to the nearly unbeatable pricing of Falcon 9 and Heavy.
Much like most other launch providers, SpaceX plays its manifest extremely close to the chest, rarely revealing more than a blanket status update. For example, SpaceX’s website states that it has “has secured over 100 missions to its manifest, representing over $12 billion on contract.” Thanks to the general drought of official manifest information, the closest approximation to a real SpaceX manifest has traditionally been maintained by members of spaceflight fan communities like /r/SpaceX and NASASpaceflight.com, using the best aspects of organized crowdsourcing to create an extremely reliable snapshot of launch contracts scheduled within ~24 months.
However, compared to SpaceX’s claimed manifest of 100+ missions at an average cost per launch of ~$120M (twice Falcon 9’s $62M list price), crowdsourced SpaceX manifests – based on mostly public information – show fewer than 60 possible launch contracts between now and the end of 2024, a majority of which are for the US government (Crew and Cargo Dragon, Air Force GPS launches, and a few NASA spacecraft). Given SpaceX’s confident use of “secured” and “on contract”, the massive gap between public manifests and SpaceX’s claims leaves more than 40 launches almost completely in the dark.
-
- Falcon 9 B1046 lifts off for the third time with Spaceflight’s SSO-A rideshare mission. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1047 lifts off from Pad 39A, November 2018. (Tom Cross)
-
- Falcon 9 B1048 appears out of the fog prior to its second orbital-class launch. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Falcon 9 B1050 is seen here just after liftoff. GPS III SV01’s Falcon 9 will feature no grid fins or landing legs. ☹ (Tom Cross)
A Big Falcon Mystery
Hofeller’s Feb. 6th comment is thus just a tiny taste of SpaceX’s potential mystery manifest, indicating that the company has more than 21 payloads to launch in 2019 while public info reveals no more than 17-18 likely to be ready. Where, then, might Hofeller find an extra 4-5 missions that public observers would not normally be aware of?
The simplest answer least reminiscent of a conspiracy theory is Starlink, SpaceX’s global constellation of at least 4425 satellites. While it would be an extraordinary achievement, Reuters reported in October 2018 that CEO Elon Musk had gone as far as firing multiple senior managers of the young satellite program to install new managers with a singleminded goal: begin launching operational Starlink satellites by mid-2019. A little over six months after Musk’s Starlink shake-up, SpaceX has pivoted towards rapidly building and launching around ~1500 first-generation satellites with more conservative capabilities to lower orbits relative to the original Starlink specification.
-
- One of the first two prototype Starlink satellites separates from Falcon 9’s upper stage, February 2018. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural Feb. 2018 launch, showing off a utilitarian design. (SpaceX)
SpaceX also received a major Starlink contract from the US Air Force Research Laboratory worth almost $29 million, $19.1M of which was dispersed to SpaceX in October 2018. As of late 2018, the company’s Starlink branch had already pivoted toward ramping up production of the first several batches of operational Starlink satellites. According to a number of employees, SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites – known as Tintin A and B – were a programmatic success and continue to operate in orbit today after proving out a number of critical Starlink technologies. As such, it’s not out of the question for operational Starlink launches to begin as early as mid-2019, although Musk’s aggressive schedule is likely more than a little overly optimistic.
Assuming Starlink is greeted with a perfect production ramp and the first 10-20 spacecraft make it to orbit in good health by June 2019, it’s at least not inconceivable that a second and third launch could follow, perhaps with a 3-month launch cadence (June/September/December). The chances of this happening are probably about as slim as they come, but it does offer one possible way for SpaceX’s apparent ~18-launch manifest to jump up to 21 or more missions. The next most probable route to 21+ launches involves at least one or two Starlink-specific launches, followed by another one or two launches for a secretive US government customer like the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
The top secret Zuma spacecraft could be alive and well doing exactly what it was intended to: https://t.co/bK6x38KyIL
— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) January 12, 2018
In January 2018, SpaceX successfully launched a spacecraft called Zuma with no known customer aside from a generic US military agency. Despite an ambiguous potential failure of the satellite – attributed to a Northrop Grumman deployment mechanism – just days after launch, a variety of anonymous sources indicated that Zuma was just the first in a series of new military satellites with a focus on SpaceX as the primary launch provider. The value of the intensely-secretive program was estimated to be in the billions of dollars, implying a veritable constellation of mystery satellites that could provide SpaceX several additional launch contracts.
Now a little over 12 months distant from Zuma’s bizarre debut, it’s conceivable that the next phase of the secretive satellite program is scheduled sometime in 2019. Ultimately, the general public is unlikely to learn about any potential mystery SpaceX launches until they are imminent, barring comments from executives or sourced leaks making their way into the news. For now, we wait.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
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
