News
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon explosion response praised by NASA in new briefing
During a recent NASA council meeting, SpaceX’s response to a Crew Dragon capsule’s April 20th explosion was repeatedly praised by the agency’s senior Commercial Crew Program (CCP) manager, her optimism clearly rekindled after several undeniably challenging months.
On October 29th and 30th, NASA held its second 2019 Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, comprised of a number of (more or less) independent advisors who convene to receive NASA updates and provide a sort of third-party opinion on the agency’s programs. Alongside NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, Commercial Crew continues to be a major priority for NASA and is equally prominent in NAC meetings, where program officials present updates.
On October 30th, CCP manager Kathy Lueders presented one such update on the progress being made by Commercial Crew providers Boeing and SpaceX, both of which are just weeks away from multiple crucial tests. Boeing is scheduled to perform a pad abort test of its Starliner spacecraft as early as November 4th, while SpaceX is targeting a static fire of a Crew Dragon capsule on November 6th. If that test fire is successful, the same capsule could be ready to support SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort (IFA) test in early-December, and Boeing’s Starliner could attempt its orbital launch debut (OFT) no earlier than (NET) December 17th.
For both SpaceX and Boeing, the results of their respective In-Flight Abort and Orbital Flight Test will determine just how soon NASA will certify each company to attempt their first commercial launches with astronauts aboard. If Boeing’s Pad Abort goes perfectly and Starliner’s NET December 17th OFT is also a total success, the company could be ready for its Crewed Flight Test (CFT) anywhere from 3-6+ months after (March-June 2020).
If SpaceX’s IFA test goes perfectly next month, Crew Dragon’s Demo-2 astronaut launch could occur as early as February or March 2020. In April 2019, SpaceX suffered a major setback when flight-proven Crew Dragon capsule C201 violently exploded milliseconds before a planned abort thruster static fire test, reducing the historic spacecraft to a field of debris. Before that failure, C201 had been assigned to perform the in-flight abort test, while capsule C205 was in the late stages of assembly for Demo-2.
Had that explosion never happened and the C201 IFA gone perfectly, Demo-2 could have potentially been ready for launch as early as August or September 2019. Instead, C201’s demise forced SpaceX to change capsule assignments, reassigning C205 to support Crew Dragon’s IFA, while C206 was moved to Demo-2. Nevertheless, as both SpaceX and NASA officials have noted, C201’s on-pad explosion has been viewed as a gift, for the most part, as the capsule failed in a largely controlled and highly-instrumented environment.
In fact, NASA manager Kathy Lueders complimented NASA’s involvement in the anomaly resolution process and repeatedly praised SpaceX’s response to Dragon’s explosion. Although the explosion was an undesirable result, SpaceX’s relentless prioritization flight hardware testing prevented a failure from occurring in flight. Performed alongside NASA, SpaceX’s subsequent investigations and experimentation have essentially brought to light a new design constraint, the knowledge of which many space agencies and companies will likely benefit from.
Most notably, however, Lueders detailed how impressed she was at the incredible speed with which SpaceX was able to respond to Crew Dragon’s catastrophic static fire anomaly.
“So the nice thing is that the SpaceX folks had a bunch of vehicles in flow. So even though we lost Demo-1 [capsule C201], … [SpaceX] was able to pull up what was going to be our Demo-2 vehicle, outfit it, make [necessary] changes [and upgrades] to the vehicle, and get it ready for [flight] with a six-month slip — a pretty phenomenal turnaround.“
Kathy Lueders – NASA – 10/30/19
Crew Dragon C201 exploded on April 20th, 2019. Five months and seven days later, a new Crew Dragon capsule and trunk – having undergone significant modifications as a result of the C201 explosion investigation – were delivered to SpaceX’s Florida facilities for their new role, Dragon’s In-Flight Abort test. Meanwhile, despite the upset and general instability, Crew Dragon capsule C206 – previously assigned to the flight after Demo-2 – is in the late stages of assembly and integration and is expected to ship to Florida for preflight preparations in early-December.
Altogether, those turnaround times are almost unheard of for such complex systems. For example, Boeing’s Starliner service module – generally less complex than the crew capsule – suffered a serious anomaly during a June 2018 static fire test. As a result, Boeing had to fully replace the service module with new hardware and repeat the same test before it could proceed to Starliner’s Pad Abort, at the time expected a few weeks later (Q2 2018).
Like SpaceX, Boeing was forced to cannibalize future launch hardware to re-attempt its static fire test, which was ultimately completed some 11 months after the anomaly on May 24th, 2019. The Pad Abort previously expected in mid-2018 is now expected no earlier than November 4th, 2019, a delay of 12-16 months. In simpler terms, the six or so months that Crew Dragon C201’s explosion has delayed SpaceX’s In-Flight Abort test is an undeniably “phenomenal turnaround” relative to both NASA’s expectations and SpaceX’s peers.
A happy partnership
The day prior, famed ex-NASA engineer and Space Shuttle program manager Wayne Hale – now serving as NAC chair – brought up SpaceX in an entirely different context, deeming the company as a whole a “sterling example” of NASA’s ability to incubate and incentivize commercial spaceflight.
Indeed, SpaceX has radically reshaped almost every aspect of the global spaceflight industry in the ten years since NASA awarded the company its first major contract, proving that orbital-class commercial rockets can be built, landed, and reused – all for far less money than NASA or competitors believed was possible.
All things considered, NASA appears to be more content than ever with the results its fruitful SpaceX partnerships are producing, and a number of senior NASA officials seem to be increasingly willing to unbridle their enthusiasm as a result.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
